Delegating our moral beliefs. . .

January 26, 2006 7:41 AM

Can we have an intelligent non-religion-bashing discussion about this article? ". . . perhaps the most shocking implication of my inquiry into the role religion plays in our lives" : ". . . those who have an unquestioning faith in the correctness of the moral teachings of their religion are a problem: If they haven't conscientiously considered, on their own, whether their pastors or priests or rabbis or imams are worthy of such delegated authority over their lives, then they are taking a personally immoral stand. Please RTFA before commenting.
posted by spock (175 comments total)

In the event that registration is required to view the Chronicle article, I have created a mirror here.
posted by spock at 7:48 AM on January 26, 2006

(registration does not appear to be required)
posted by raedyn at 7:49 AM on January 26, 2006

The author of this piece has just published a book (*he is prolific) on the evolutionary background to religious belief and felt need for various religious forms.
posted by Postroad at 7:53 AM on January 26, 2006

From the article: The fact that your faith is so strong that you cannot do otherwise just shows (if you really can't) that you are disabled for moral persuasion, a sort of robotic slave to a meme that you are unable to evaluate.

The problem is that many theists are proud of this ignorance: they consider it a badge of honor that their faith is so strong that they need not give a reason for their views other than "Because God said so."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:54 AM on January 26, 2006

That is an excellent article. Thx.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 7:55 AM on January 26, 2006

What should we do about those whom we honestly think are being conned? Should we leave them to their comforting illusions or blow the whistle?

This is a difficult question that I had to face about a year ago when a friend became involved in what we believed to be a cult. I'm not sure there is any answer that's completely correct.
posted by raedyn at 7:56 AM on January 26, 2006

Good luck with that.

So, if I understand the FA, religion is a sham but as long as that sham isn't exposed then it actually provides some benefit. But that unexamined religious belief is part of the problem, that the leap of faith (which is really the crux of the whole religious issue) creates a chasm separating sheepish believers from non.

An interesting and long article but not especially new concepts.

My solution is to just outlaw all religion.
posted by fenriq at 7:58 AM on January 26, 2006

Here you go - non-religious bashing. Everybody has to believe in Something. I've seen Star Trek fans get into fistfights over matter-antimater cold mix ratios. I've seen tub-ass joe 12-packs paint themselves green, dress up like trekkies in their favorite team uniforms, and act like what's going on in a stadium 20 miles away was a personal triumph/tragedy. I've seen a guy hold up a picture he cut out of an Enquirer magazine and claim it to be proof of UFO visitation. I've seen athiests blast the religious with a fervor every bit as equal to a religious zealot.

Putting it simply, people can't just back the heck off and let other people do what they want. You HAVE to be RIGHT - therefore He HAS to be WRONG. That's vindication. That's Justification. That's the definition of Victory.

Anybody remember that crazy little dingo that dressed up for the Whitewater court in a star trek suit? She's still out there doing it. It's what she believes in - she looks like a clown, and screwed up in the head, but she sets her jaw and does it anyway. Sounds like any Christian I know. Sounds like any sports nut I know. Sounds like any political devotee I know.

It's a big, big world, and if you want to go existential it could care less if you get hit by a falling MIG tomorrow, your family gets broasted by a failing gas heater on Wednesday, your mother catches a bad case of cancer and dies slowly as she turns into a living waxy yellow skeleton.

You could be on the street making pools of frozen piss by the subway grate a year from now - all it takes is a little twist of fate here, and a little bad luck there. It's all out of your control.

So Everybody has to find something to hold onto. Everybody needs a teddy bear to sleep with. Everybody needs to believe in something.
posted by Perigee at 7:59 AM on January 26, 2006

This is something I've been thinking about as well. I think all religions should bare examination. Carl Jung wrote about religion and spirituality in general as being symbols derived from some innate collective unconsciousness about how we relate to nature. I suppose that you could say that the concept of nature has changed over the years to include society and technology and religions have evolved (Evangelical, Mormonism, etc.) to attempt to lend a sense of understanding between unconscious motivations and our environment.

I'd like to think that we can see certain phenomina of religion like fundamentalism or orthodoxy as implying a significant rift between the innate and unperceived reality; Churches of 30,000 people in the Southern States are really just people trying to make sense of their fast-food lives; The Taliban is, perhaps, a reaction to poverty and villification.

Therefore it must be useful to learn about religions but also important to examine what we find unpalatable because we learn about ourselves.
posted by dobie at 8:01 AM on January 26, 2006

Good article, unnecessarily condescending and hostile post.
posted by brain_drain at 8:03 AM on January 26, 2006

Should we leave them to their comforting illusions or blow the whistle?

OK. Let's focus on that question for a moment. It is a black & white sort of question (using loaded language, as well). I think the point of the article is that no one should feel threatened by being asked to examine the validity/consistency/morality of their beliefs. Whether that questioning comes from one's self, a professor, a clergyman, a door-to-door evangelist, or a close friend is (in my mind) mostly irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is: Is it a good question and have you a reasoned answer for it. If not, you have some work to do. And there lies the main problem: We humans are generally resistant to work (unless deemed absolutely necessary). It becomes much easier to delegate one's reasons for a particular belief to (for example) our religious affiliation (or lack thereof).
posted by spock at 8:04 AM on January 26, 2006

what brain_drain said. not that I RTFA though.
posted by Frasermoo at 8:05 AM on January 26, 2006

Good article, unnecessarily condescending and hostile post.

I apologize to those who felt my post was condescending or hostile. I cannot ignore the sum of my past experiences with reading any discussion that touches on the subject of religion on the blue. I suppose a better way of saying it could be found. I was hoping this thread could be different.

Outlawing religion is as unrealistic a "solution" to the core problem as outlawing MeFi commenting unless one has RTFA.

The belief system is inside the head. The religion is just an outward manifestation of those who claim the same label or who inhabit the same building for their religious services.
posted by spock at 8:15 AM on January 26, 2006

Being completely subservient to authority, and refusing to think about things, is hardly limited to religion.

People do not like to think. It's really that simple. Most of the problems in the world can be directly traced to that fact.

Religion itself is almost immaterial... that's just a symptom of the deeper problem.

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying a la Mencken, but I don't believe so.
posted by Malor at 8:17 AM on January 26, 2006

Very good article. I wholeheartedly agree that unexamined religious devotion is a serious mistake. I think there are more than the "three main options" suggested, but perhaps the inclusion of the term "main" is meant to acknowledge that. I have a problem, though, with any analysis of religion, science or anything else that starts with the a priori assumption that the thing being analyzed is, without exception, pure hokum.

I guess in the spirit of "tolerance," the assumption that all religion is pure hokum is generally the easiest "tolerant" position for those who, deep down, are actually angry and hostile toward religion.
posted by JekPorkins at 8:19 AM on January 26, 2006

You can't "outlaw" religion any more than you can outlaw politics or war or any other basic element of human nature. And like politics and war, religion will always be expressed along a full spectrum, from the moderate to the extreme. And different people will occupy different parts of that continuum at different parts of their lives. The sociology, psychology and biology of religion, politics and war are too intimately mingled to separate. Don't get in a sweat about things you can't change. That's my religion.
posted by Faze at 8:22 AM on January 26, 2006

I read the single linked article halfway and then became bored and started wondering what I should eat for lunch: Wendy's or a homemade spinach salad. The answer to that question will be much more interesting that the article. It was the usual basic thinking that lots people consider during their 20s, reach their personal conclusions and then move on. Philosophy 101 and all that.

But this comment is interesting:

I think the point of the article is that no one should feel threatened by being asked to examine the validity/consistency/morality of their beliefs.

Why SHOULDN'T they feel threatened? This is spiritual food to many people, something they feel in their bones and just know is right, something that is critical part of who they are, so OF COURSE they're going to feel threatened. It's not a question of whether it's right or wrong, but just a fact of life. Best a person can do is to bring it up, POLITELY, have a little debate and then leave the person the hell alone. People do odd things and just 'cause they're doing something for religious reasons doesn't mean it's wrong.

On preview: what brain_drain said, and perigee makes a simple point that everyone I suspect everyone knows but don't dwell on 'cause it's scary as hell.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:23 AM on January 26, 2006

Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
-- Ambrose Bierce

...a sort of robotic slave to a meme that you are unable to evaluate. And if you reply that you can, but you won't consider reasons for and against your conviction (because it is God's word, and it would be sacrilegious even to consider whether it might be in error), you avow your willful refusal to abide by the minimal conditions of rational discussion.

I believe that demanding rational discussion of matters of faith is faulty logic.

Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
I loves me my Devil's Dictionary.
posted by carsonb at 8:25 AM on January 26, 2006

I read the single linked article halfway and then became bored and started wondering what I should eat for lunch: Wendy's or a homemade spinach salad. The answer to that question will be much more interesting that the article.

I'm not certain if you were joking or not, but back in college I wrote a Philosophy paper on that very subject. Using the example of a decision between a salad and a cheeseburger, I argued that people often make choices in opposition to their own self-interest when they let immediate satisfaction outweigh long-term benefits. Got an A on it, as I recall.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:30 AM on January 26, 2006

Ultimately this is just about competing preferences: Dennett thinks it's desirable to consider thoroughly any principles you adopt, while many religionists think it's desirable to adopt principles with the minimum possible consideration. I personally agree with the guy, but there's no ultimate reason his preference is right.

Facile-sounding but true observation: Dennett's preference for considered right action (or some similar basic principle) is adopted with as little justification as the cultist's trust in his leader.
posted by grobstein at 8:31 AM on January 26, 2006

i'm with Malor--people really don't want to have to seriously think about everything, or every possible implication of their beliefs and values--whether they come from a religion, or family, or past experiences, or whatever. It's true for all of us in certain ways, and when it comes to certain beliefs.

There is only one way to respect the substance of any purported God-given moral edict. Consider it conscientiously in the full light of reason, using all the evidence at our command. No God pleased by displays of unreasoning love is worthy of worship.
I'm all for this--We have brains and wills and the capacity for thought for a reason. Not to use them is a sin.
posted by amberglow at 8:33 AM on January 26, 2006

"I read the single linked article halfway and then became bored and started wondering what I should eat for lunch..."

Just don't try to get a bowl of pork soup...
posted by MikeMc at 8:36 AM on January 26, 2006

grobstein, i don't think it's that simple--people do consider other decisions very thoroughly--buying a house or car, to take one job or another--in every other part of their lives. Our lives are chockful of those kinds of decisions, where people have no problem thinking things through. Those same people, tho, when it comes to religion, turn off that part of their brains, when they don't do so otherwise.
posted by amberglow at 8:36 AM on January 26, 2006

Morality is a variable. It is whatever you want it to be. Being unwilling to examine one's own beliefs is apparently immoral to the author, but to a devoutly religious person it is likely the epitome of morality.

The article is rather absurd because it takes the author's opinions and makes them the basis by which we are to consider all of his musings.
posted by wabashbdw at 8:38 AM on January 26, 2006

people really don't want to have to seriously think about everything, or every possible implication of their beliefs and values[...]

What if it's impossible to really think through every implication of one's belief in values, or at least impossible to justify them by logic from universal premises? If chasing down the roots of all our moral beliefs is ultimately going to be fruitless, why are we obliged to even start?

Try it -- start with a moral belief, ask why, rinse, repeat(, profit). Let me know if you get to the bottom. ("God said" doesn't count, and neither does "That's just how I feel", or "That's best for society / maximizes utility / perpetuates the species." All of those putative justifications lack grounding. Why, morally, should we perpetuate the species, for example?)

(Enjoyed the article -- thanks!)
posted by grobstein at 8:39 AM on January 26, 2006

It shouldn't come as a surprise that perfection in consistency or understanding is not fully realized in religion or its adherents. Why would religion be any different than any other institution or discipline in that regard. The faithful usually attribute this to flaws in humanity; the a-religious often attribute this to flaws in the institution. Either way, I think those assertions can never amount to more than a criticism of the practice of religion, but not its goal nor substance.

The ideal that the faithful fully understand their dogma and doctrine is noble and worth pursing. Equally noble is ideal we'll all understand biology well enough to avoid blind faith doctors and financial planning well enough to avoid greasy accountants.
posted by klarck at 8:40 AM on January 26, 2006

Those same people, tho, when it comes to religion, turn off that part of their brains, when they don't do so otherwise.

I believe that religion lies outside of the scope of that part of my brain. Faith is irrational. I agree with the author of the article that I should consider faith and it's implications carefully and rationally, but I think he should not find fault with me if I do not heed rationality when considering my religious faith.
posted by carsonb at 8:45 AM on January 26, 2006

Perigee writes 'Putting it simply, people can't just back the heck off and let other people do what they want. You HAVE to be RIGHT - therefore He HAS to be WRONG. That's vindication. That's Justification. That's the definition of Victory.'
Nah, that's just the morons you see on TV. Most of us centered, socially adapted people don't really care one way or the other what other people believe as long as they're not cramming it in out throats, branding us or dropping bombs on us because of it.
It's still (sometimes) fun to argue, but actually care what other people think? Nah.
Problem is the extremists (of any kind) are the ones who make the headlines.
posted by signal at 8:47 AM on January 26, 2006

Facile-sounding but true observation: Dennett's preference for considered right action (or some similar basic principle) is adopted with as little justification as the cultist's trust in his leader. - grobstein

Yeah, one of my thoughts was "why do our beliefs need to be justified and/or justifiable?" I've always been one who asks why and if someone takes a stand that "foo is morally wrong" I want them to justify it. Telling me the Church decrees it does not satisfy me. But why should you have to justify your opinions to me? You'll certainly never convince me of something or change my mind without justification, but if that's not your goal then there isn't any reason to. Who am I to demand you exlain your yourself?
posted by raedyn at 8:48 AM on January 26, 2006

Religion has more to do with GEOGRAPHY than anything else. This should give believers of any faith a hint as to their religion's validity and applicability to life in general. It is a primitive tradition that the human race will be better off without.
posted by sydnius at 8:49 AM on January 26, 2006

But then why do so many religion-shop, and actually change faiths/branches? I've read that up to a quarter of the US population has made a switch.
posted by amberglow at 8:52 AM on January 26, 2006

people do consider other decisions very thoroughly--buying a house or car, to take one job or another--in every other part of their lives. - amberglow

But even that varies from person to person. Some people will always buy Ford trucks, a new one every year, because "they're the best" no matter what other information they're given. (This is a lot like the sports fan analogy in the article)
posted by raedyn at 8:55 AM on January 26, 2006

Facile-sounding but true observation: Dennett's preference for considered right action (or some similar basic principle) is adopted with as little justification as the cultist's trust in his leader.

Say what? Is there a non-spurious argument in favor of considered wrong action? Or indeed, ill-considered--or even unconsidered--wrong action?

I find it impossible to credit the notion that a trust in rationality is equivalent to "a cultist's trust in his leader."
posted by rdone at 8:57 AM on January 26, 2006

If I read him correctly, Dennett assumes that there are really only two possible reasons for religious belief: one is rational consideration, the other is because it's what you were told.
But in fact there is an important third reason: the direct personal experience of God, available only to those who have made the leap of faith. This experience cannot be communicated effectively in words to those who haven't had it, but it is utterly convincing to those who have (they say - I'm an atheist myself).
Arguing with people who believe on these mystical grounds is a waste of time and beside the point. You're liable to get the kind of answers that someone like Dennett, who thinks rational inquiry is the only road to truth, naturally finds frustrating. I suspect all this is the real reason why many people don't challenge other's beliefs - not so much out of deference to their feelings, as out of a recognition that they'd be wasting their breath.
posted by Phanx at 8:59 AM on January 26, 2006

Religion has more to do with GEOGRAPHY than anything else. This should give believers of any faith a hint as to their religion's validity and applicability to life in general. It is a primitive tradition that the human race will be better off without.

So do economics, available technological advances and scientific advancement. And they are all "primitive traditions of the human race." Should we jettison those, as well?
posted by JekPorkins at 8:59 AM on January 26, 2006

"Please RTFA before commenting"

Just try and make me, Vulcan.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:01 AM on January 26, 2006

Two simple rules to deal with life:

1. Don't do anything that could offend others.

2. If have failed in rule 1, try to do it in a manner where it doesn't impact others.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if I didn't have to hear about half the shit that's going on in the world, then I would think the world was a much better place, and I could go on living my life respecting rule number 1 without distractions, certainly with much less apprehension, and expecting others to do the same.

First time I try to express this so no doubt it could be picked apart easily. The first rule certainly seems to be very much a "do unto others..." thing.
posted by furtive at 9:04 AM on January 26, 2006

"Please RTFA before commenting"

No.

When you start out like this you poison your own well.
posted by caddis at 9:11 AM on January 26, 2006

You know, quite honestly, I've seen better written dissections of religion from first year Anthro 101 students. Or at least I'd expect such self-evident observations to stem from the minds of students rather than an educator with presumably decades of experience behind him. There's nothing new here (or at least there shouldnt be) for any thinking person who has considered his own spiritual or social place in the world.

Unbearably pedantic.
posted by elendil71 at 9:11 AM on January 26, 2006

But even that varies from person to person. Some people will always buy Ford trucks, a new one every year, because "they're the best" no matter what other information they're given.
They do that, but their first lemon tends to change that, or something else does, whether it's a rave from a friend about another brand, or your trusted salesman leaving or going to work for another brand, etc. Even brand loyalty has limits, as evidenced by the rise of some brands, and fall of others, and rebirth of yet others. I think it might be more consistenly true to say that people will avoid certain brands no matter what, even after just one bad experience, instead of saying the reverse.

We've seen mainline Christian denominations losing members for years now. Some of those people are dropping out altogether and others are choosing new denominations/faiths. That wouldn't be true if they were unquestionably and unthinkingly following a faith, would it?
posted by amberglow at 9:13 AM on January 26, 2006

Put another way spock, respect is a two way street and when you start out by disrespecting your audience don't be surprised if they fail to respect you in return.
posted by caddis at 9:14 AM on January 26, 2006

"The unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates
posted by the shitty Baldwin at 9:15 AM on January 26, 2006

What JekPorkins just said. "If you want to be rich, just move to Beverly Hills." Silly poor people.

And the author is still way off in believing that ordinary people can now make a bigger dent in the world's problems as opposed to times past. The reality is that local involvement will always generate a disproportionately higher return than global involvement.
posted by wabashbdw at 9:18 AM on January 26, 2006

"The unexamined life is not worth living." - Socrates
how would he know?
posted by carsonb at 9:22 AM on January 26, 2006

Oh my that's some article...Its style is barely tolerable, yet the content is somehow interesting

Even if you are right — that is, even if God does exist and has, personally, told you that stem-cell research is wrong — you cannot reasonably expect others who do not share your faith or experience to accept that as a reason.

He's correct, yet he seems to forget that really faithful people almost always forget the reasons that convinced them to accept some article of faith. So why should they expect others not to think at least alike them ?

Every religion — aside from a negligible scattering of truly toxic cults — has a healthy population of ecumenical-minded people who are eager to reach out to people of other faiths, or no faith at all, and consider the moral quandaries of the world on a rational basis.

Those with a knack for recruiting do. For instance the Witness of Jehova bored me to death at least 20 times even if I repetedly poked hole into their arguments. Most of them reject my arguments as soon as they recognize I may say something reasonable BUT not acceptable/ not a godly truth / ungodly. Even if I don't start with a confrontational self righteous attitude, most of them quickly turn self-righteous.

But such well-intentioned people are singularly ineffective in dealing with the more radical members of their own faiths. In many instances they are, rightly, terrified of them

Not surprisingly, the evangelizers would like you to convert you , the zealots don't tolerate your existence. Obviously the former looks like a bunch of faithless sissies to the latter..but they're two expression of the same problem..they both bought into God-said delusion.
posted by elpapacito at 9:25 AM on January 26, 2006

Put another way spock, respect is a two way street and when you start out by disrespecting your audience don't be surprised if they fail to respect you in return.

While I appreciate the sentiment, the only audience I was disrepecting was the one for which the request applied. If the shoe doesn't fit, then why are you so determined to wear it?
posted by spock at 9:35 AM on January 26, 2006

It's interesting to note that Jesus (is said to have) actually taught his followers. He used parables and explained the reasoning behind what he asked them to believe. Well, except for the 'I am the messiah' thing, but still.
posted by dyaseen at 9:40 AM on January 26, 2006

Actually, dyaseen, he explained the reasoning behind the "I am the messiah" thing, too, and even presented direct evidence of it on several occasions. Of course, he pointed out that there was greater merit in exercising faith than in demanding evidence -- the whole "faith precedes the miracle" thing -- but according to the admittedly spotty accounts of his life, he didn't exactly leave his followers hangin'
posted by JekPorkins at 9:43 AM on January 26, 2006

"RTFA before commenting"

There is no better way to dissuade me.
posted by CunningLinguist at 9:47 AM on January 26, 2006

"Who is committing the more reprehensible act — Gortner, who lies to people to get their money, or the filmmakers who expose the lies (with Gortner's enthusiastic complicity), thereby robbing the good folk of the meaning they thought they had found for their lives?"

Neither. The most reprehensible act in this tale is on the part of the believers themselves. I make no judgement about those who believe. I do make judgement about anyone who chooses to believe in anything without question.

"To base one's argument on faith is to concede that reason lies with one's opponent."
--Ayn Rand (paraphrased)

It is possible to be a devout religious believer without being required to defer reason. In fact, the process of challenging one's beliefs is the greatest way of expanding and solidifying them.

Those who wear ignorance and suspension of reason as a badge of honor are entitled to the fruits of their decision.

Good post. And Ps to carsonb and the Shitty Baldwin...good stuff. Thanks.
posted by ThusSpakeZarathustra at 9:51 AM on January 26, 2006

Best a person can do is to bring it up, POLITELY, have a little debate and then leave the person the hell alone. People do odd things and just 'cause they're doing something for religious reasons doesn't mean it's wrong.

Well, when the "odd things" people do includes supporting a regime or war that kills tens of thousands because they believe it's helping to bring about conditions necessary for God's return, or when "odd things" includes denying women bodily sovereignty because they believe a fertilized egg is destined by God to become a baby, or when "odd things" includes teaching a generation of 21st century American kids that creation is just as viable as evolution, then I have the moral obligation to step beyond the restraints of politeness in asserting the need for them to back up their positions with something rational.

And if they refuse or are unable to be rational, then I have the obligation to work against them, or at the very least resist them.
posted by squirrel at 9:52 AM on January 26, 2006

The problem with belief unsupportable by observable facts, is that it is "turtles, all the way down." And of course the problem with observable facts is that there is no end of what can be observed, some of which will inevitably be contradictory. At some point, we all cover over the unknown, interpolate, and assume, rather than live in the draft of reality coming through the ignorant cracks in our consciousness. We have to, to avoid being dysfunctionally insane, to agree with our fellows enough to not only survive, but thrive as social beings.

Our challenge is to permit as many others to thrive as possible, even if some of them are insane.
posted by paulsc at 9:54 AM on January 26, 2006

dyaseen:
Nah. Don't concentrate in what he taught, that's for inteleckshual libruls. To be saved you need to ignore that silly part (and all that commie mountain sermon thing) and just concentrate in how he is a magic guy who can come back from the dead, make lots of fish and turn water into kool-aidwine.
posted by qvantamon at 9:56 AM on January 26, 2006

JekPorkins
but according to the admittedly spotty accounts of his life, he didn't exactly leave his followers hangin'

AFAIK at least Peter was left hanging... upside down... on a cross...
posted by qvantamon at 9:58 AM on January 26, 2006

i am so on dennett's dick, its not even funny.
posted by phaedon at 10:00 AM on January 26, 2006

i think the most interesting assumption that some are making is the idea that many of the faithful haven't thought about what they believe or never doubt it ... that people just put on their religious beliefs like one would put on a coat and never actually have to struggle with it

i also have to wonder if there would be as much disgust here with such people if they had voted for kerry instead of bush ... or just stayed home ... and decades ago, that's what they tended to do ... not get involved

in fact, there's still a substantial proportion of evangelicals who don't believe in getting wrapped up in worldly concerns such as politics

but feel free to keep generalizing about people you don't know ...
posted by pyramid termite at 10:01 AM on January 26, 2006

"RTFA before commenting"

There is no better way to dissuade me.

You go, rebel!
posted by iamck at 10:05 AM on January 26, 2006

i also have to wonder if there would be as much disgust here with such people if they had voted for kerry instead of bush ...

This is like the condemnation of drunk driving which is rightfully increased when the driver kills someone.

but feel free to keep generalizing about people you don't know ...

Oh, I grew up with them, pt. I know intimately the "struggles" of the pious.
posted by squirrel at 10:12 AM on January 26, 2006

>"RTFA before commenting"

There is no better way to dissuade me.

The actual quote would be: "Please RTFA before commenting." Your edit is an attempt to make your position almost justifiable. I happen to believe that those who comment without RTFA are contributing to the Farkification of MeFi. Could be just me, though. To those who wish to identify themselves as one of those perpetrators of the practice, I salute your honesty in full-disclosure, if not your adolescent rebellion issues.
posted by spock at 10:14 AM on January 26, 2006

If you're thinking, you're not believing.
If you're believing, you're not thinking.
Thinking about believing attacks believing.
I believe in thinking.
posted by the Real Dan at 10:19 AM on January 26, 2006

but feel free to keep generalizing about people you don't know ...
posted by pyramid termite at 10:01 AM PST on January 26

pyramid termite . . . many of us . . . are related to . . . theists . . . many of us . . . grew up . . . with . . . the lessons that theists take . . . to heart . . . but thanks . . . for . . . generalizing . . .
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:20 AM on January 26, 2006

spock, RTFA = Read the Fucking Article. Adding please does not change the fact that you came out swinging.

Next time, drop the F and the attitude and your thread won't be derailed into you constantly having to defend yourself.

pyramid, that's right, because none of us has ever been part of an organized religion and chosen our own path. Or studied theology. Or anything like that.

But you keep making generizations about what people know and do not know.
posted by fenriq at 10:25 AM on January 26, 2006

No God pleased by displays of unreasoning love is worthy of worship.

This last sentence is a wonderful summation of what I wish to say to the fundies of the world.

Looks like I found another book for my Amazon wish list.
posted by nofundy at 10:29 AM on January 26, 2006

The question here is quickly shaping up to being, "People should examine their religious beliefs more closely." Turn the question on its head -

"Why do people have religious beliefs? And why is it so important to others that they not?"

A whole lot of people put great stock on the Fact that some shmoe and his rib wandered around petting lions until they ate a poison apple. A lot of people put a great deal of stock in the Fact that some old guy walked up a mountain and recieved two Flintstones letters from a brushfire.

Why? Are the guy and the rib important to them? Are they rabid brushfire fans? Nawww. That's all the trappings that surround the stuff that's Really Important to them:

"Daddy's out there watching. Be Good, and Daddy will bring you a present."

A solid statement of a reason for existence, a solid statement of a reason for social responsibility, and the comfort that after the body gives up the ghost you get a red balloon and a trip to Disneyword that lasts forever.

With an anchor like that to predicate your days in a cold, impersonal, and hostile world, people will put up with much on the outskirts and sing it as the Ultimate Truth.

Wally Gator could be a 14th apostle, and I'd wear a medallion to him, if it got me a ticket on the highway to heaven.

So... What's the problem?

Tear it all down, and what does it buy you? A lot of folks would say it buys you intellectual freedom, but essentially what it does is it rips down the bus shelter and exposes you to the wind and rain while you're waiting for Godot.

Imagine there's no heaven - it isn't hard to do... why give to charity? That money's yours, and there's no divine reward for giving some dumpy slob a meal instead of buying that new set of cha-cha heels. I'm alright, Jack - just get your hands off my stack. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? You only go around once in life, and nobody's watching - why not take what you want?

Morals can quickly become a cheap set of tinfoil armor, suitable for suckers, grifters and bleeding hearts. Even as it stands, some folks out there beat their chests about pulling the plug on some foetus, while glorifying the death of 21 year-old foetuses who have been sent out to fill the godless with shells and shrapnel. These are people who have examined their morals... and picked and chose between them. You're mistaken to call them religious - they've turned their backs on the whole manual and bought their self-righteousness ala carte.
posted by Perigee at 10:38 AM on January 26, 2006

Damn. That was a nice rant.
posted by spock at 10:41 AM on January 26, 2006

squirrel, you make a valid point, which is what I take away from this whole discussion:

I personally don't give two shits about what anyone else believes; however unexamined your faith is, it's YOUR faith and not mine, so knock yourself out.

It's when you decide that your faith must be my faith, that I must believe and pay homage to what you believe, that we have a breakdown.
posted by kgasmart at 10:46 AM on January 26, 2006

Why in the world was this published in the Chronicle of Higher Education? First, it has nothing to do with higher education. Second, preaching to the choir isn’t really strong enough for the argument of this article. If Mr. Dennett wants to change people's minds (and that seems to be what he’s about here), he really ought to talk to some people who think differently about religion than he does. Might I suggest he repair to the nearest Church with his suggestions? He’ll find some minds to change there.
posted by MarshallPoe at 10:48 AM on January 26, 2006

which part of "some" didn't people understand? ... it's right there in the first paragraph

interesting that people turn my statement into a gross generalization and then turn around and say, "no, you're the one who's generalizing"

that's a great way of proving that you don't generalize or build straw men, isn't it?

if the shoe fits, wear it ... if it doesn't ... why line up for shoes?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:49 AM on January 26, 2006

Shoeless Joe Jackson approved this message.
posted by the shitty Baldwin at 10:50 AM on January 26, 2006

It's like a bunch of three year-olds in here: "Ain't gonna do what you tell me!" Gahd.

Anyway,

I am urging... that anybody who professes that a particular point of moral conviction is not discussable, not debatable, not negotiable, simply because it is the word of God... should be seen to be making it impossible for the rest of us to take their views seriously... [they are] inadvertently acknowledging that their own views are not conscientiously maintained and deserve no further hearing.

Damn straight. You can no reason with the unreasonable.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:54 AM on January 26, 2006

Please RTFA before commenting

Tshyeahright. You think this is Plastic.com or something?
posted by alumshubby at 11:00 AM on January 26, 2006

...your adolescent rebellion issues.

I'm sorry, taking issue with your rude, hectoring tone on the front page is adolescent? How so, exactly? And speaking of editing, my "position" is not that one shouldn't have to "read the fucking article," my position is that you shouldn't have been so obnoxious in presenting something for others to read.
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:01 AM on January 26, 2006

Morals can quickly become a cheap set of tinfoil armor, suitable for suckers, grifters and bleeding hearts. Even as it stands, some folks out there beat their chests about pulling the plug on some foetus, while glorifying the death of 21 year-old foetuses who have been sent out to fill the godless with shells and shrapnel. These are people who have examined their morals... and picked and chose between them. You're mistaken to call them religious - they've turned their backs on the whole manual and bought their self-righteousness ala carte.

That depends on whether "religious" = "moral" i think (i think people really don't examine whether things are really moral or not, but they also don't necessarily make the equation some of us do) . And which things are motivated by religious belief, and which things are motivated by fear or some misguided patriotism or political belief, etc. People compartmentalize too much i think, especially when the result of examining something becomes troubling. We're all morally complicit in that soldier's acts, and can not escape that, whether religious or not--it's being done in our name, and we allow and fund it.
posted by amberglow at 11:03 AM on January 26, 2006

Phanx - good point.

A few years ago, I went to an amazing lecture by David Gottlieb - an orthodox rabbi, and former Prof of Analytical Philosophy at John's Hopkins.

He made a series of arguments, backed up by exquisite reasoning, on why the atheistic position has not been proved. I was mightily impressed at the rigor, but had issue with a couple - and only a couple - of his points.

After circular arguments which centered around assumptions, he flatly said: logic isn't going to convince you of the existence of god. Divine revelation is what's required.

This from someone who is extremely religious, leads one of the most examined lives I know of and yet could easly bat at Dennet's level in terms of logic.
posted by lalochezia at 11:03 AM on January 26, 2006

I read portions of the article a week or two ago, so I guess I don't need to worry too much...

One aspect of this issue I haven't seen addressed here (and I may have missed it) is, what about those who have, to a greater or lesser extent, examined their belief, and still believe? Most posters here seem to think that faith will crumble under the slightest hint of critical examination. It ain't necessarily so.

Using myself as an example, I had the religious experience as a teenager, but as I get older (much older, I hate to say) I have looked harder and harder at my religion's claims. Many of them I find to be hokum, and there many who at least claim to be my fellow believers who are proud of their ignorance and even, to my mind, evil.

After all this examination (and it isn't over, of course), I don't believe as I did when I was younger, but I still believe. Obviously, nhot everyone will arrive at the same answer. I guess that all makes me a bit of a heretic, but I really don't mind.
posted by lhauser at 11:04 AM on January 26, 2006

I personally don't give two shits about what anyone else believes; however unexamined your faith is, it's YOUR faith and not mine, so knock yourself out.

Word.

It's when you decide that your faith must be my faith, that I must believe and pay homage to what you believe, that we have a breakdown.

Also, and this was my point, when the decisions you make because of your faith impact my life, and the lives of the vulnerable (e.g. school kids, citizens of occupied countries), then I draw the live-and-let-live line. It's not okay for your faith to fuck up our shared world.
posted by squirrel at 11:06 AM on January 26, 2006

After reading this thread, I'm convinced that God long along changed the channel and stopped watching us doing prime time and only checks us out when theres nothing else much interesting happening in the the known universes and even then it's with a mixture of disgust and amusement, based on how much he's been drinking.

Satan never checks in, considering us to easy.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:13 AM on January 26, 2006

re: the insulting nature of the post

When you start by asking "Can we have an intelligent non-religion-bashing discussion about this article?" and finish with "Please RFTA before commenting" you are implying that your audience is capable of neither unless they are pre-emptively scolded.

You can hardly be shocked when said audience has their feathers ruffled, can you? Next time, pretend you don't have disdain for them, and they might respond better. (And don't play that "the only audience I was disrepecting was the one for which the request applied" bullshit, because it doesn't work that way. Requiring your readers get past an insult - even one they believe isn't directed at them - puts them in a hostile mood. Seriously, this is like, public speaking and persuasive writing 101: don't piss people off, even inadvertently, and especially not right off the bat.)
posted by stefanie at 11:25 AM on January 26, 2006

which part of "some" didn't people understand? ... it's right there in the first paragraph
posted by pyramid termite at 10:49 AM PST on January 26

It's . . . okay . . . to generalize . . . as long as . . . you use . . . the word . . . some . . . p.s. . . . sometimes I imagine . . . your posts being . . . read by a ghost . . . because of all the trailing off ellipses . . . woooooooooh . . .
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:25 AM on January 26, 2006

if you're using the word some, you're not generalizing

you were busted, o c ... deal

bye
posted by pyramid termite at 11:28 AM on January 26, 2006

It's not okay for your faith to fuck up our shared world.

But that's the problem, in their opinion, your lack of faith or faith in the wrong things are what's fucking up their world.

And that's why dealing with zealots is so darn difficult. Not only do they believe that their way is the only way, but they believe that this world is *theirs*, not ours.

I know it's awfully Pollyanna of me, but I just don't understand why folks just can't be polite to others, mind their own business and not get bogged down in the details. After all, religions are just a method of enforcing social controls that at one point were very vital to human existence. Why can't we weed out the ones that aren't so important any more (no pork, no shellfish, gotta have a ton of kids to populated the world) and stick with the ones that are important (don't steal, don't lie, and don't kill each other) and let the rest just be up to personal choice.
posted by teleri025 at 11:30 AM on January 26, 2006

I believe the very act of proselytizing is based out of fundamental insecurity. If I can convert you, i.e. convince you of the rightness of my believes, that therefore is a validation it is correct. Mormon's believe in some wacked out shit (albeit no more wacked out than other religions, but wacked nonetheless). I lived in Utah for many years, a christian scientist (and we believe some wacked out shit by societies standards as well lemme tell ya). When engaged in discourse with a missionary, I would push the discussion back on them, and why they believed, what have they proven for themselves...and I would invariably hit a wall where the external programming stopped...fear would kick in and more than once I recieved the default error message: "You are trying to shake my faith." The conversation would be over soon after.

Many churches these day thrive on external forces, and shun internal exploration. They define themselves by what they hate, derving identity from circling the wagons. Them Liberals, them muslims, them jews, "we need to stand strong against those tearing away at the lords work".

A church's only purpose should be to connect the divine to the human. This, in my christianly based humble opinion is a connection that already exists, we just tend to forget it from time to time. Churches that lay out complex dogma and moral codes to follow to ensure fitmess for that connection appeals to those elements in us that just want to be children and told what to do, and appeal to our fear to control us. Not all churches do this. But most do.

Ok, enough rambling.
posted by prodigalsun at 11:30 AM on January 26, 2006

if you're using the word some, you're not generalizing

some minorities . . . sure like to steal . . . and be lazy . . . but I'm not racist . . . woooooh . . .
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:32 AM on January 26, 2006

I dunno, Amberglow - I've fought this Iraqi creepshow as far back as a year before it was enacted, and managed to get myself lambasted by Tim Sullivan and his mindless flying monkeys because of it. (The little freak has since come around to my way of thinking - thrills me no end.) I take no "moral responsibility" for it - if I went out and mowed down some granny shouting out "This is for Amberglow!," you wouldn't be morally married to it, nor would you be if I used 20 bucks you owed me to buy the gas to do it.

I would, however, feel morally responsible if I didn't yowl like a scalded cat about it - as you have yourself in the past. You and I have been shoulder-to-shoulder on several threads throughout the invasion and occupation. Just because We're American, We're not 'complict' in Iraq, any more than just because somebody's white they're not 'complict' with the KKK.

That being said, religion may not equal the whole of morality but all of religion is - supposedly- a subset that belongs entirely within the moral set.

When the Romans came to take Christ, Christ forbade the use of violence, even in the protection of his own life - "Those who live by the sword shall die by it." That's the Bible Story. Seems simple. Anybody who has picked up a weapon, for any reason, and blown new holes in human anatomy is acting directly against the will of Christ.

Period. No excuse. Every soldier is "a sinner"- every glorification of war an act of turning from the teachings of Christ. Lotsa handbaskets to Hell being filled nowadays.

Now, you'll find a lot of people performing circus freak gyrations to avoid this obvious, direct vocalized commandment of Christ, and a lot of people who - for obvious reasons- will buy it. But just because they do, doesn't mean their Christ will: "Many will come to me, and I will say depart;you never knew me."

There are times when religious people have to feel like ducks during duck season. There's a whole bunch of people out in the bushes to blow them out of the sky, and a whole bunch of people making sounds like ducks that aren't ducks at all.

The good folk are just laying low and wishing the first group would stop trying to plug 'em, and that the second group would stop pissing the first group off.
posted by Perigee at 11:37 AM on January 26, 2006

What about all those people who have had cosmic (drug-free) experiences but don't know for sure what they mean: are they some neurological shenanagins or an actual experience of the Boundless Stuff of Life Itself? (Do enough meditation and shit happens!)

I think those people are different from those who join a religious group for primarily emotional reasons, and reasons that have recently been meming around in books like Religion Explained: evolutionary reasons.

Or maybe I just feel superior to those Christians who are positive I'm going to hell. It's all pretty confusing to me, I must admit.
posted by kozad at 11:39 AM on January 26, 2006

But that's the problem, in their opinion, your lack of faith or faith in the wrong things are what's fucking up their world.

That's right, and they will tell you that your "belief" in Darwinism, for example, constitutes an attempt on your part to impose your secularist religion on them.

Sigh.
posted by kgasmart at 11:59 AM on January 26, 2006

When you start by ...[yadda blah blah blah]... they are pre-emptively scolded.

The real shame is that although his admonition appears to have worked (there's some good conversation in here), it appears he also should have added "And if you're prone to hissy fits about how I worded my post, keep out of the thread. We're gonna try to have a decent conversation."

Alas, he did not, and so we have the inevitable Guardians of The Front Page ragging on his ass instead of focusing on the actual link.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:13 PM on January 26, 2006

Faith is the building block of Catholicism and Islam as I understand it. Questioning faith is perceived as a sin by strict adherents, right? Thus, you have the fundamental dichotomy of the author's premise. He wants true believers to question their faith, which they are forbidden to do. Based upon my personal observation, having both a Christian and Muslim zealot in my family, unquestioning belief is the cornerstone of their personal religious strength, in fact defining themselves by the strength of their faith. It's hard to see how what the author espouses will ever come to pass, although its hard to argue with the sentiment from where I sit. Its like asking a bird to swim and a fish to fly.
posted by sfts2 at 12:29 PM on January 26, 2006

Plus what five fresh fish said.
posted by sfts2 at 12:30 PM on January 26, 2006

I'd just like to point out that the weakness of one person's faith, or their failure to honestly examine whether that faith has paid off as promised, cannot be extended to a general statement about faith in general. So someone has met a religious person who, when pressed, couldn't back up their faith. That says something about that individual, but not about faith generally, or even about the validity of the religion that that individual claims to believe in.
posted by JekPorkins at 12:42 PM on January 26, 2006

Perigee, we disagree then. Our soldiers doing anything in our uniforms are doing them in our name completely. We are morally complicit and responsible for both the good and the bad they do. They are acting on our behalf, whether we agree with the cause or not--we bear responsibility. That's why "Not In Our Name" was such a big deal during the protests--because people realized that it was in our name that things would be done, and wanted to make clear not all of America agreed. Stating that, however, does not make it so, especially morally.
posted by amberglow at 1:12 PM on January 26, 2006

I personally don't give two shits about what anyone else believes; however unexamined your faith is, it's YOUR faith and not mine, so knock yourself out.

Funny, my faith dictates that I kidnap and torture non-believers like yourself until you have been converted or killed, either way you're no longer a problem.

Still cool with me believing whatever I want?
posted by fenriq at 1:13 PM on January 26, 2006

You know, quite honestly, I've seen better written dissections of religion from first year Anthro 101 students.

You did read the bottom part, right? The part that states that this essay is an adapted essay from a book that is to be published? So, you're making your assessment realizing that you have just been given a tiny sliver of the entire work. And you've taken into consideration the fact that the intended audience for the book involves a wide array of viewpoints, some of whom need different types of convincing than others to get the author's larger point.

Gee, the similarity to an Anthro 101 essay is so blindingly clear.

That's right, and they will tell you that your "belief" in Darwinism, for example, constitutes an attempt on your part to impose your secularist religion on them.

Yeah, because belief in Darwin's ideas has produced such horrible results in bioscience, resulting in hideous things like genetically engineered insulin for diabetics, and other world-destroying therapies that all true-believing religious people shun.
posted by beth at 1:23 PM on January 26, 2006

sfts2: Faith is the building block of Catholicism and Islam as I understand it. Questioning faith is perceived as a sin by strict adherents, right?

I'm neither a Muslim nor a Catholic, but I don't think that's right. Certainly there are at least some elements within the Catholic Church who would disagree.

There probably are some officals, sects, and movements within both Islam and Christianity which encourage deeper understanding through questioning, and some which do not.
posted by Western Infidels at 1:27 PM on January 26, 2006

I'd just like to point out that the weakness of one person's faith, or their failure to honestly examine whether that faith has paid off as promised, cannot be extended to a general statement about faith in general. So someone has met a religious person who, when pressed, couldn't back up their faith. That says something about that individual, but not about faith generally, or even about the validity of the religion that that individual claims to believe in.
True...but some religions thrive on the unexamined spiritual life...
posted by prodigalsun at 1:30 PM on January 26, 2006

One aspect of this issue I haven't seen addressed here (and I may have missed it) is, what about those who have, to a greater or lesser extent, examined their belief, and still believe? Most posters here seem to think that faith will crumble under the slightest hint of critical examination. It ain't necessarily so.

I am speaking only for myself here (though I imagine I am not alone), but for me an examined belief system held to someone's internal standards of rigor earns a hell of a lot more respect from me than does one accepted on blind faith.

People who resort to faith as their foundation (*) intentionally and consciously decide to short-circuit their reasoning capabilities, and I find this abhorrent. That's willfully drowning one of the greatest things about the human mind, and some people have the audacity to be proud of this, and brag about it. It makes me rather ill to witness. Such people are basically moral robots, following someone else's programming. And that is a damn dangerous thing to be - if you can believe something without any evidence or reasoning to back it up, you can be programmed to believe *any* hateful, violent, disgusting thing that the people you give power to decide to infect you with.

I'd rather be among people who at least consider things like the implications of their moral code, things such as whether other people might be harmed by their decisions, that sort of thing. I think they make much better fellow-citizens, and frankly, much more interesting conversational companions and friends.

(*) - the definition of faith that I personally use is essentially "belief in the absence of or particularly in direct opposition to the evidence". I consider direct religious experience / hallucination to be a type of evidence, albeit a personal, non-externally-verifiable sort of evidence.
posted by beth at 1:33 PM on January 26, 2006

True...but some religions thrive on the unexamined spiritual life...

Probably. But probably not the ones that most people would think of when making that statement.

And, beth, I think your post is outstanding. Faith is vital in that it prompts the first step (the 'leap of faith'), but a belief based on faith should be supported by the positive result of the faith experiment. In other words, when one exercises faith in some religious tenet, that faith should be confirmed by the occurrence of the predicted result of the leap of faith. If the predicted result doesn't happen, then the experiment has failed, and a thoughtful person would seek out more promising prospects. One who takes a leap of faith only to have it fail, but still believes, is IMHO, foolish.
posted by JekPorkins at 1:40 PM on January 26, 2006

JekPorkins, there you go, injecting rationality into faith. Once you do that, it's no longer "faith", but rational thought.

Growing up religious, one Bible verse we were taught over and over was "Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test", the implication being that God does not respond to tests, and as such they would always fail. And, of course, testing God indicates a lack of faith so, like, you shouldn't do it.

Self-protected irrationality -- gotta love it!!
posted by LordSludge at 2:02 PM on January 26, 2006

Why would a loving, inerrant God give humankind the ability to reason, if he didn't want us to use it, anyway?

Because that way we would have a chance to screw up so he could send us to hell, or what? Wtf? I don't get it.
posted by beth at 2:12 PM on January 26, 2006

“Everybody needs to believe in something.” -posted by Perigee

I’ve always found the problem to be when the belief doesn’t change or evolve to fit the evidence, whether through experiance or empirical observation. Of course some beliefs like wearing a trekkie uniform are harmless if you don’t mind the social downsides.

“Therefore it must be useful to learn about religions but also important to examine what we find unpalatable because we learn about ourselves.” -posted by dobie

Well said.

From the article:
“Here is what we should say to people who follow such a tradition: There is only one way to respect the substance of any purported God-given moral edict. Consider it conscientiously in the full light of reason, using all the evidence at our command. No God pleased by displays of unreasoning love is worthy of worship.”


Well...having been snarked at on just such an issue I can empathize with the “Can we have an intelligent non-religion-bashing discussion about this article? "” post title.

Still, I’ll winnow my argument down to the bare bones and drain the religion out of it on GP.

There’s a mix in the article between knowlege (that is the objective truth required for knowlege) and the responsibility for belief that connects that responsibility to actions. Which somewhat obscures the real question.

Is person A subjectively justified in believing X if and only if person A’s believing X results from the dispositions that person A manifests when person A is motivated to believe the truth?

Does person A know X only in cases where (a) person A is subjectively justified in believing X, and (b) as a result of this person A is objectively reliable in believing X?

In this sense the persons virtue is the primary consideration with belief and knowlege in terms of that.

Person A knows X only in cases where person A’s believing X results from a virtuous cognitive character.

But is that what is in essence being considered?

No.

What he is asserting here (through the add-ons) seems to be the Aristotalian argument that humans value knowledge over belief and through exercising one’s abilities (reason, et.al) one can come to knowlege and that intellectual virtue is a greater virtue than that derived from character or traits.

I’d have to agree.

But I’d have to go back to context. He talks about “God” and “worship” “evidence” and “moral” - what criteria does he have in mind?
How stringent is the criteria? How wide or narrow is his definition of “God” or “evidence” or “morality”?
How do we go about “saying to” people?

What if they don’t want to listen? Do we then force them?

The problem I have is this is an isolated value judgement (like so many f’ing arguments) - even apart from the “saying to people” there is is the statement: “There is only one way to respect the substance of any purported God-given moral edict...”

Really? Only one way? And it solves the problems encountered in this situation? All of them?

And what is a “reasonable adherent” of a “faith”?

So while I’d concede the point on intellectual virtue (which leads to the objective truth required for knowlege) I’d argue that some weight must be given to the practical results and the value judgements made.

This is not at all to argue in favor of leaving “beliefs” intact that lead to “good deeds” etc. because that is what he seems to be asserting.
And the end here seems to further assert a (vaguely defined) system of “reason” on belief or faith while judging the value of that end apart from the means to reach it and apart from the value of that end (”reason” - in whatever context he means it) as a means itself.
That can’t provide the basis for rational action.

More simply - reciprocity is the key to any relationship.

Which many folks have said here.

Lots more on virtue epistemology here.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:17 PM on January 26, 2006

LordSludge: Not to bring a real theological debate to the table, since that's not what MeFi's for, but within Christianity it seems quite silly to suggest that God doesn't respond to tests. During Christ's ministry, he allegedly responded very well to tests -- when Peter had faith that he could walk on water, he took the leap of faith and the test allegedly succeeded. True, when faith is tested and succeeds, it ceases to be faith, and becomes knowledge.

And yeah, I inject faith with rational thought all the time. I believe irrationally that God wants us to be rational and to put him to the test constantly. But I'm a strange duck.

Metafilter: Not a real theological debate.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:20 PM on January 26, 2006

Western Infidels,

Certainly some lines of thought are outside the mainstream teachings, but the 'main line' of thinking is that its a sin to question. Thats what I was taught as an altar boy, in the distant past. My point being is that the reason what the author proposes probably won't happen is no more complex than that a main tenet of the religion is that questioning is weakness, so most zealots will not question.

Isn't it always forgotten in these discussions that often its the training by the parents that create zealots, its not the result of questioning by the individual themselves except in some cases. My brother is a great example of the exception, born Catholic, converted to Islam after 10 yrs in Malaysia, now a spirtual leader or Mullah for about 1/2 a state full of Muslims. He questioned his original faith often, and does not question Islam at all. Its weird. He says he likes the fact that Islam is unambiguous, everything you need to do is in the Q'uran.

beth, You're falling into the trap of thinking rationally. Its faith.
posted by sfts2 at 2:27 PM on January 26, 2006

That’s a pretty cool post and position, beth.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:30 PM on January 26, 2006

In other words, when one exercises faith in some religious tenet, that faith should be confirmed by the occurrence of the predicted result of the leap of faith.

Wouldn't some just call that "Confirmation Bias"?
posted by spock at 2:33 PM on January 26, 2006

Wouldn't some just call that "Confirmation Bias"?

Sure, but that could be said of any rational inquiry, including the scientific method, so it's about as good as it gets. Faith is what convinces you to test the hypothesis. It's also what gives you confirmation bias, but the very idea of confirmation bias seems to me to mostly be a logical argument designed by those who don't like the results of the experiment.

And I think it'd be tough to argue that Peter's walking on water was just confirmation bias (assuming the story's true, which is assuming a lot). Obviously, as the predicted effects of an exercise of faith get "squishier" and less objectively observable, confirmation bias plays a larger role. Nevertheless, if firsthand observation of empirical evidence is not to be trusted, then all analysis is out the window, and I don't think that's where the conversation should lead.
posted by JekPorkins at 2:39 PM on January 26, 2006

Why would a loving, inerrant God give humankind the ability to reason, if he didn't want us to use it, anyway?

Because that way we would have a chance to screw up so he could send us to hell, or what? Wtf? I don't get it.

Here's the short version: What does God want from us? He wants our love. In order for our love for God to be real, it has to elective; we have to have the choice to *not* love Him. God gave us the ability to reason so that we could make choices. He doesn't provide us with absolute *proof* of his existence because to do so would be to remove the element of choice. Faced with an all-powerful, all-knowing God, you would be an idiot to defy Him. God doesn't want anybody to go to hell. Hell is separation from God forever. However, giving you the ability to act autonomously and *opt out* of a relationship with God, He has to respect your decision. It is out of respect for us, and our ability to reason and make our choices, that we are consigned to eternal separation from God if we elect that path.
posted by JParker at 2:44 PM on January 26, 2006

Hell is separation from God forever.

And we can choose it? Sweet. Obviously, Satan needs to hire you as a press secretary ASAP.
posted by boaz at 2:54 PM on January 26, 2006

I choo-choo-choose you, separation.
posted by the shitty Baldwin at 2:58 PM on January 26, 2006

Non-belief is just as moving and powerful as belief, if not more. It frees the constraints of possibility, thus enabling either critical thought or abstrct abandon. It's your choice, and that's why I can never get inflamed about religious arguements. God or Whatever can not be cornered and killed in a paragraph, nor can God or Whatever be made any more present than the sunset, or an oak tree.

Why can't we just allow our choice or non-choice to speak for itself and move along?

Oh, because people kill each other over this, and the world hangs in the balance because of faith or non-faith. Wish it were that easy.
posted by moonbird at 3:01 PM on January 26, 2006

I can't speak for the texts that other faiths hold sacred, but as far as the Bible is concerned, if you do any research at all into the original Hebrew and Greek words that are commonly translated "hell" you will see that they have nothing to do with the Danté-inspired ideas of a fiery netherworld under the control of a pitchfork-wielding Satan. That idea has been burned into your brain (pardon the pun) by religions who used the teaching to extricate blind obedience and extort people monetarily. Sadly, some hang onto the idea to this day.

The original words (Hades and Sheol) mean simply "pit" or "grave" and stand for simply death (nonexistence), or the common grave of mankind. The greek word Gehenna is used to symbolize everlasting destruction (death from which there would be no resurrection). Gehenna was a burning dump outside the city walls where carcasses (among other things) were disposed of. The living were not thrown there, but it pictured an ignomious end.

This is just one example of a belief that people rarely question or investigate for themselves. As a doctrine, by itself, it has turned people away from religion/God for millennia. I hope you won't simply take my word for it either.
posted by spock at 3:10 PM on January 26, 2006

It's pretty ironic that Dante's Divina Commedia has actually contributed to people's beliefs about heaven & hell, and arguably strengthened the coercive power of the Church.

It's also ironic that so many attacks on Christianity are based on the preposterousness of Dante's satirical version of the afterlife.
posted by JekPorkins at 3:15 PM on January 26, 2006

And so I stand, conflicted -- which is, to some extent, the point of the article: On a personal level, should I argue against theism, knowing it to be false, immoral, and ultimately harmful to society, or should I leave it alone, as individual Believers are probably happier with their faith?

As an ethical atheist in a devoutly christian family and regional culture, I lean towards the latter -- not for me, but for them.

It bothers me, however, that my silence constitutes a tacit endorsement of religion.
posted by LordSludge at 3:17 PM on January 26, 2006

knowing it to be false, immoral, and ultimately harmful to society

How, praytell, do you have such a certain knowledge of such a broad thing?
posted by JekPorkins at 3:21 PM on January 26, 2006

LordSludge, i think as long they keep their faith away from our laws and our rights, they should be left alone. Good comes from religion too--it's not all bad.
posted by amberglow at 3:44 PM on January 26, 2006

How, praytell, do you have such a certain knowledge of such a broad thing?

It legitimizes that idea that might makes right.

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:28 PM on January 26, 2006

Optimus Chyme:

First, you're not the one who made the assertion. Second, how does religion -- all religion -- legitimize the idea that might makes right?

And assuming you can answer that question, how do you know for sure that might doesn't actually make right? Most religions I know of do not believe that might makes right, and their refusal to believe that seems a little irrational (though I agree that might does not make right).

And the answer to your question is: That depends.
posted by JekPorkins at 4:39 PM on January 26, 2006

Some people don't like to play a game unless it's for keeps. The game in this case being Moral Debate. Is it because they are higher and freer more reckless with their possessions, throwing caution to the wind or is it because they can not be enticed into sport if blood will not be drawn, if it will not excite their passions and satisfy their lust to dominate? Dennet would have all moral agents play a game whose rules are Reason, as if such an object could provide knowledge of things other than concepts, but in order to enter into the game it is not enough that you play by the rules and skillfully; in order to enter the game you must be willing to sacrifice your starting position should you lose the bout. Essentially to abandon your position, whether permanently he does not say but with beliefs most possession is not ephemeral but long and deep. It is not enough for Dennet to simply carry the day his opponent must admit defeat. Reason, to Dennet, is a field in which one does not simply present reasons or posit possibilities but rather the game becomes universal the totality of one's world. The question is why would a theist who doesn't have a preexisting belief in the virtue of reasoning or at least the utility or temporary value want to engage in his game. They already readily acknowledge that reasoning is insufficient to some extent so if they play Dennet can win but they cannot. There seems to me to be a hint of malice in suggesting such a uneven playing field when the stakes are so high. Perhaps it is Dennet who should play the game of the religionists, debating Scripture with the Talmudic scholars. The implication of Dennet's position is that if he wins he gets to enjoy the robust savor of victory, garnished with moral ascendency, and as consolation to his opponent as he struts off the field he offers that they will be smarter next time they play. Dennet's position is that of an intellectual bully.
posted by Endymion at 5:12 PM on January 26, 2006

I think beth needs a hug.
posted by squirrel at 5:35 PM on January 26, 2006

JekPorkins: How, praytell, do you have such a certain knowledge of such a broad thing?

Just say, for the sake of argument (and remaining on-topic), let's say that I do. Ethically speaking, what should I do with this knowledge? "Enlighten" folks? Or STFU?
posted by LordSludge at 6:17 PM on January 26, 2006

LordSludge: Ethically speaking, what should I do with this knowledge?

Ethics are, of course, a matter of both opinion and codification in some contexts. As a matter of opinion, then, I respond as follows:

If you have certain knowledge that all religion is, as you put it, "false, immoral, and ultimately harmful to society," then I think that you have an ethical duty to share that knowledge with the rest of the world. I believe that, since such knowledge would be so extraordinarily unique and unprecedented, you would have an ethical duty to explain exactly how you came upon the knowledge that all religion is false, that all religion is immoral, and that all religion is ultimately harmful to society, including the nature of the harm you refer to, and exactly what you mean by "immoral" and the source of the morality you believe it breaches.

I don't think there's any codified ethical duty for you to do so, but I admit that I'm not familiar with every set of codified ethical rules that you may be professionally bound to.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:25 PM on January 26, 2006

It's also ironic that so many attacks on Christianity are based on the preposterousness of Dante's satirical version of the afterlife.

The irony being that you don't have to wait for the afterlife for hell. Tell it to this woman.
posted by missbossy at 6:48 PM on January 26, 2006

Most religions I know of do not believe that might makes right

The whole of Judaism and Christianity are predicated on that idea. God is good not because he follows a higher system of ethics, but because he is God, and he alone will define what is good and what is not. He derives this authority not from reason, but from raw power. To paraphrase God in his conversation with Job:

"Where the fuck were you when I was hanging the stars? I am the Maker and I shall unMake my Creation as I wish."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:48 PM on January 26, 2006

God is good not because he follows a higher system of ethics, but because he is God, and he alone will define what is good and what is not.

I disagree with you that either Judaism or Christianity is predicated on that idea. And your paraphrase doesn't even support the notion.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:52 PM on January 26, 2006

Optimus Chyme: You seem to be implicitly advancing some form of the Euthyphro dilemma if I'm not mistaken. But you are assuming in that context that Godliness and omnipotence are synonymous which isn't necessarily the case and certainly wasn't true for many middle eastern religions. For example, Zoroastrianism had the omnibenovolent God Ahura Mazda who was opposed by the equally powerful Angra Mainyu. Also divine command theory is not reasoned to by stages from God is powerful and God is Good, and these two must be related because they reside in the same being therefore God must be Good because he is powerful. You could just as easily reason in the opposite direction to God is powerful because he is Good. It assumes a relationship between the two properties that is not necessary. God could be omnibenevolent and only incidentally omnipotent. Furthermore you can't pillory Christians for believing in some form of Divine Command theory without acknowledging the other side of the dilemma. It is a paradox because it has no ready solution. The paradox is intriguing because it illuminates the difficulty of thinking about a prime mover. It is essentially a question of whether the substance proceeds the form or the form the substance.
posted by Endymion at 8:25 PM on January 26, 2006

It, like the problem of evil, is a paradox that needs to exist only insofar as God does, endymion. The ability to bypass unnecessary paradoxes is a prerequisite for non-circular reasoning.
posted by boaz at 8:44 PM on January 26, 2006

your paraphrase doesn't even support the notion.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:52 PM PST on January 26

Sure it does. God's point is that Man is unworthy to judge God, because God is the oldest and the biggest and the smartest.

You seem to be implicitly advancing some form of the Euthyphro dilemma if I'm not mistaken.

Pretty much. That particular idea is always the first I think of when it's posited that God is good.

But you are assuming in that context that Godliness and omnipotence are synonymous which isn't necessarily the case

It is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, with which I'm primarily concerned, having to deal with my overwhelmingly Christian countrymen.

It's funny that you bring up Zoroastrianism; although I lack belief in those two crazy kids, I find that a world fought over by two equally powerful but opposed entities to be much more "realistic" than the idea of all-Powerful YHWH and his wayward Adversary whom he could unmake in an instant.

Also divine command theory is not reasoned to by stages from God is powerful and God is Good, and these two must be related because they reside in the same being therefore God must be Good because he is powerful.

That's not my claim, though. My claim is that whether or not God is good in a higher, independent, meta-good sense is irrelevant; because God makes the rules, he could easily reverse what is good and what is evil tomorrow or next year or right now. Because the very definitions of good and evil are dependent on God's whims, might indeed makes right.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:51 PM on January 26, 2006

The irony being that you don't have to wait for the afterlife for hell. Tell it to this woman.
posted by missbossy at 6:48 PM PST on January 26

I like how God mercifully kills in their sleep those who curse him, but saves punishments like, oh, say, being burned alive or raped to death for children and the righteous.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:54 PM on January 26, 2006

boaz: The question then becomes 'Is it a necessary paradox?' Religious people would say that it is, that God is (a) Being, and Being is seen in the western tradition as non contradictory, though the eastern world has another take on the matter. Paradoxes are the price we pay for having the systems that we do and some may just have to be endured. Besides they give philosophers something to do and keep them off the streets.

Optimus Chyme: You are conflating two powers of God by placing them both under the heading of might in order to prove that one is the cause of the other or that they are somehow related. God's power/ability to, under divine command theory, create moral values is not the same as his power to smite people, just like my power to argue with you is not the same as my power to bench 350lbs. You're falsely introducing a third term into the discussion and using might as if it were synonymous with God's alleged ability to create morals when in fact that term is loaded and conjures up all kinds of connotations that are completely irrelevant. You could argue that the powers are necessarily correlated but so far you have not done that.
posted by Endymion at 9:18 PM on January 26, 2006

Optimus Chyme is right, or would be if God were arbitrary, capricious or malicious. But religionists would cite God's self-limitations, i.e. the various covenants with different groups of people throughout history. And God has given the religionists a playbook and He's presumbly bound by the rules and prognostations therein. Because he is bound by those self-imposed constraints, Endymion is right. Might might "make right" if you had the power to change what is right, but if you don't, even by limitations on your own behavior, and right is an established paradigm (whether or not it comes from God), then might and right are no longer connected.

If OC is saying God is arbitrary, that would be a valid position for might makes right, but I haven't heard that.
posted by JParker at 1:06 AM on January 27, 2006

God is good not because he follows a higher system of ethics, but because he is God, and he alone will define what is good and what is not.
God's not better than you, just bigger is all.
posted by carsonb at 1:43 AM on January 27, 2006

God's power/ability to, under divine command theory, create moral values is not the same as his power to smite people, just like my power to argue with you is not the same as my power to bench 350lbs.

First of all, that's a pretty serious bench for someone named after an obscure Greek myth. I'd expect it to be more on the order of RippedDogg69 or somesuch.

Second, God's power to destroy is most certainly linked to his moral authority, because you can't argue or reason with God.

Imagine that God destroys your lands and kills your children, and you say: "That was not right. That was not just." Well, he's not going to reply "I had to do this in order to save a planet of tentacle beings on Tau Ceti 7," he's going to say "I'm God, I've been around the longest, so suck it up."

If a madman kills your family, the explanation "who are you to question me," hardly exonerates him. Why hold God to a lower moral standard than a man?

Now: I'm not saying that God's power makes him good, or that there's a correlation between these two powers. So maybe that's where we're running into a snag. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter whether he's good or not because even if he is not good, you can't do a damn thing about it.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:47 AM on January 27, 2006

Optimus: Again, I'm not fully familiar with the other books held as sacred by the world's religions, but from the Bible's standpoint your assertion is partially correct. The standard is what it is, just as you can't argue about the length of the measuring stick. We must have a standard at the base of any discussion of length or distance. However, this is not considered a bad thing, but a good one. Without an absolute standard no discussion or agreement about length or distance is even possible.

However your point that "you can't argue or reason with God" is just wrong. An example of just that is found in the Genesis account of Moses arguing with God over his destruction of the righteous along with the wicked in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah. Moses bargained God down to forgiving the whole area if 10 righteous men could be found. (There couldn't so instead righteous Lot and his family was escorted out of the area. Note that even in that account, Lot bargained with God so as to not have to go into the mountains, but instead flee to a nearby town. God also made him that concession.) So much for not being able to "negotiate" with God, as long as his righteous standards are not compromised, he can and apparently does do so.

The New Testament would seem to indicate that this has not changed, although human's communication is now through that of prayer. "The effective prayers of a righteous man can accomplish much" ~JAMES 5:16.
posted by spock at 8:13 AM on January 27, 2006

An example of just that is found in the Genesis account of Moses arguing with God over his destruction of the righteous along with the wicked in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah. Moses bargained God down to forgiving the whole area if 10 righteous men could be found. (There couldn't so instead righteous Lot and his family was escorted out of the area. Note that even in that account, Lot bargained with God so as to not have to go into the mountains, but instead flee to a nearby town. God also made him that concession.) So much for not being able to "negotiate" with God, as long as his righteous standards are not compromised, he can and apparently does do so.

Ah, but this was before God acted. As an omniscient being, God knows full well what he plans to do; he knew of Moses's objections before the universe was even created: it was a show, a charade. A better example would be: you cannot second-guess him nor critique his actions once he has acted.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:27 AM on January 27, 2006

Your definition of omniscience results in a paradox. Thus a premise in your definition cannot be correct. You are attempting to shoehorn omniscience into a singular linear timeline. I prefer to conceptualize it this way: A game of chess has a set of rules, so many squares, and so many pieces. The player is an individual with a set of choices (at any point in the game). The choices that he makes will lead to success or failure. An omniscient being could see where any move on the board is leading (even if the number of possible combinations would be mind-boggling to us). But it is the moves of the individual that will determine which path or outcome he reaches.

As complex as the chess game is (with it's millions of permutations) it is only a scaled down illustration of the complexities of paths or choices that an individual makes during their live. The interactions of individuals (and their choices) makes our contemplations of the possibilities truly as ungraspable as our contemplations of the universe through a picture taken by the Hubble in which each "star" seems to resolve into a galaxy (or cluster of them).

Perhaps related? I find it interesting that one major school of quantum theory posits a multiplicity of universes and this has major implications for the reality in which each of us lives.
posted by spock at 8:52 AM on January 27, 2006

An omniscient being could see where any move on the board is leading (even if the number of possible combinations would be mind-boggling to us). But it is the moves of the individual that will determine which path or outcome he reaches.

An omniscient being sees all paths before the game even begins. He knows the possible paths, and he knows the paths that will be taken. You cannot trick him, fool him, surprise him. Any negotiation or conversation with an omniscient being is pointless; you can have no effect on him nor convince him to spare anyone.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:58 AM on January 27, 2006

God is certainly capricious--look at Job. And he/she/it was just one of many Gods, so i'd add insecure as well of his place in the universe. I'd say not omniscient either--that was added later, i think.
posted by amberglow at 9:07 AM on January 27, 2006

very human, in fact, no? (disclaimer: i totally believe we invented God, and have been building on the whole thing for centuries, for needed reasons)
posted by amberglow at 9:12 AM on January 27, 2006

Job is a parable, and isn't even presented as a true story. It's not a commentary on the nature of God, but a parable about humility.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:13 AM on January 27, 2006

But the stuff about gay people should be taken 100% literally.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:14 AM on January 27, 2006

What stuff about gay people? There's stuff about people who have gay sex, and stuff about having sex with someone other than your spouse, but nothing about gay people, as far as I know. In fact, I'm not sure that the ancients believed in the modern concept that a person's sexual lifestyle was an immutable trait. I could be wrong, of course. I just don't know what you're talking about.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:16 AM on January 27, 2006

Job is a parable, and isn't even presented as a true story.

Huh, where'd you get this? I was not aware that the Bible said which books were true and which weren't.
posted by boaz at 9:21 AM on January 27, 2006

What stuff about gay people?

You are the most obtuse, disingenuous person on these forums, Jek.

Leviticus 20:13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Having homosexual sex is a pretty big part of the life of homosexuals, just as having heterosexual sex is a pretty big part of the life of heterosexuals.

Don't give me that "hate the sin/love the sinner" bullshit, either. If you are gay you are going to have gay sex. And then in a world ruled by Biblical law, you will be executed.

But oh ho ho all that stuff about fucking over Job and loving your neighbor and the rich man's difficulty into getting into heaven and beams in the eye and all that: that's all figurative. They didn't really mean it. They were just funnin! But no gay sex!

P.S. Other Christians think you're full of shit when it comes to interpreting Job as "not being presented as a true story." So why don't you hash it out with them before you pretend to be the voice of Christianity.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:27 AM on January 27, 2006

Optimus: When did I pretend to be the voice of Christianity?

If you don't see the distinction between status and conduct, I'm sorry. It's not disingenuous, though.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:31 AM on January 27, 2006

If you don't see the distinction between status and conduct, I'm sorry. It's not disingenuous, though.
posted by JekPorkins at 9:31 AM PST on January 27

There is no distinction unless you are a sexless lunatic. Imagine this: my god thinks that you are going to hell for engaging in heteroseuxal acts, Jek. So no more sex. Also I am going to kill you if you engage in that act. How about them apples?

Still waiting for your sure-to-be-awesome defense of Job not being presented as a true story, by the way.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:42 AM on January 27, 2006

If you don't see the distinction between status and conduct.

Well porkie, here's a knife, and there's two guys having sex*. Now, is Christianity something you are or something you do? If the latter, then take that knife and get christianing.

* Note, in this context, knife, guys and hot anal sex are all metaphorical. It's a parable about the nature of Christianity, you see.
posted by boaz at 9:49 AM on January 27, 2006

my god thinks that you are going to hell for engaging in heteroseuxal acts, Jek.

That's conduct. Not status. In American jurisprudence, there is a useful analogy where drug laws are concerned: A law that prohibits drug possession or drug use is in regards to conduct. One that prohibits a person from being a drug addict is in regards to status (and is, coincidentally, unconstitutional).

The bible's prohibitions are conduct-based, not status based. The prohibition you've suggested is also conduct-based, and not status-based. It doesn't punish me for who I am, but for what I do.

And if you seriously think I'm full of it on the Job thing, then read up.

And boaz, what on earth brand of Christianity do you think asks people to kill people who commit sin? I distinctly remember something about those without sin casting the first stone, don't you?
posted by JekPorkins at 9:53 AM on January 27, 2006

That's conduct. Not status. In American jurisprudence, there is a useful analogy where drug laws are concerned: A law that prohibits drug possession or drug use is in regards to conduct. One that prohibits a person from being a drug addict is in regards to status (and is, coincidentally, unconstitutional).

No shit. But that's a bit unrealistic, isn't it? Oh, you can be gay, you just can't have gay sex. Enjoy the next sixty years of celibacy or we'll kill you.

And boaz, what on earth brand of Christianity do you think asks people to kill people who commit sin? I distinctly remember something about those without sin casting the first stone, don't you?

Jesus said a lot of things his followers don't listen to. I'm sure you can recall the witch-hunts of Europe, right? Twenty to fifty thousand people dead. Men, women, children. And why? Exodus 22:18: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:05 AM on January 27, 2006

p.s. thanks for comparing homosexuality to drug addiction that was aces
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:07 AM on January 27, 2006

I distinctly remember something about those without sin casting the first stone, don't you?

Ah, but prostitution, the common notion of the woman's crime, is, unlike homosexuality, not listed in the Bible as punishable by death. If you'd just learn Hebrew and read the Bible already, you'd know this.

And those were stones; I gave you a knife. Whole different instrument, doesn't require casting, etc.

And really, the whole thing's a parable, even explicitly marked as such; you're taking it way too literally.
posted by boaz at 10:10 AM on January 27, 2006

Oh, you can be gay, you just can't have gay sex.

You didn't read my earlier post re: the modern concept of sexual identity. Oh well. And again, where are you getting this "Christians must kill sinners" thing? And abstinence from sin is asked of everyone, not just certain people. Furthermore, the prohibition against adultery (which is broadly inclusive of any extramarital sex) requires celibacy of everyone.

If you don't believe that certain conduct is actually a sin, then don't subscribe to that religious faith.

Jesus said a lot of things his followers don't listen to.

By definition, this is false. If they don't listen to him, they're not his followers.
posted by JekPorkins at 10:11 AM on January 27, 2006

Well, it was a pretty good discussion there for a while. But now we're derailing on people's mistaken views that the God-given that were given (for very important and expressed purpose) to the nation of Isreal, all still apply to us today.
posted by spock at 10:11 AM on January 27, 2006

^laws/rules
posted by spock at 10:12 AM on January 27, 2006

Thanks, spock. I agree. But I do wonder what authority you claim that allows you to say that someone else is wrong in their beliefs. I certainly don't agree with Optimus' claim that Christians are required to kill witches and others, but I'm not tryin' to bash his religious belief just because I think it's bunk.
posted by JekPorkins at 10:16 AM on January 27, 2006

(for very important and expressed purpose)

And that important purpose would be? Don't leave us hanging.
posted by boaz at 10:17 AM on January 27, 2006

p.s. thanks for comparing homosexuality to drug addiction that was aces

That was certainly not my intent. Since you didn't seem to know the difference between status and conduct, I thought an analogy from U.S. law might help you.

But here's an analogy that is equally effective, and perhaps you will be less offended by it:

Being someone who loves ice cream: Status. Eating ice cream: Conduct.

The only comparison was the status/conduct distinction. And you're being disingenuous.
posted by JekPorkins at 10:19 AM on January 27, 2006

But now we're derailing on people's mistaken views that the God-given that were given (for very important and expressed purpose) to the nation of Isreal, all still apply to us today.
posted by spock 7 minutes ago

Take it up with the more than half of the American people who believe that homosexuality is a sin, along with their extremely powerful spiritual and governmental leaders.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:24 AM on January 27, 2006

If they don't listen to him, they're not his followers.

*Proffers knife again*
posted by boaz at 10:25 AM on January 27, 2006

Being someone who loves ice cream: Status. Eating ice cream: Conduct.

Choose either a or b.

A) You may never eat ice cream again. If you do, you will be killed.

B) You may never have sex again. If you do, you will be killed.

Oh sure, you could choose not to have sex ever again. But why should you have to?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:26 AM on January 27, 2006

Optimus, I'm not sure why you persist in the "or you will be killed" thing.

And what part of the bible says that a person can never have sex again?
posted by JekPorkins at 10:29 AM on January 27, 2006

And what part of the bible says that a person can never have sex again?
posted by JekPorkins at 10:29 AM PST on January 27

If you're gay, you can't, unless you want to be put to death. It's right there; read it.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:37 AM on January 27, 2006

If you're gay, you can't, unless you want to be put to death. It's right there; read it.

Again, it says nothing about "being gay." And it says nothing about never having sex again. It proscribes certain types of sexual acts, but not "having sex" in general.

What this comes down to, I think, is two things: First, you don't appear to believe that there's a difference between status and conduct -- you seem to think that the conduct is unavoidable or something. I've heard this theory before, and frankly I think its crap. Second, you seem to think that the conduct described is not actually morally wrong or sinful, and that the bible's proscription of that conduct is, therefore, incorrect. That's fine. You can believe whatever you want.

This discussion started with my questioning you about what the bible says about a certain status that has only very recently even been considered to be a status. Ultimately, it says nothing about that status. It proscribes certain conduct that you seem to consider unavoidable by someone who has the status you describe. You seem to ignore the fact that it's entirely possible for someone outside that status to engage in that conduct, which strikes me as odd. But you avoid the fact that the bible proscribes conduct, not status.

Oh well. Disagree with the proscription all you want. That's fine.
posted by JekPorkins at 10:44 AM on January 27, 2006

conduct defines status, especially nowadays. It's always been true. I'm a man who has sex with men, and is attracted to/falls in love with other men--that's conduct, among other things, but it also defines my status as a gay man. I could be a non-practicing gay man, but then my life would suck, which is not something God wants for us.
posted by amberglow at 10:54 AM on January 27, 2006

Jesus said a lot of things his followers don't listen to. I'm sure you can recall the witch-hunts of Europe, right? Twenty to fifty thousand people dead. Men, women, children. And why? Exodus 22:18: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Jesus was in Exodus? Damn, that fellow really does travel through space and time.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:54 AM on January 27, 2006

Again, it says nothing about "being gay." And it says nothing about never having sex again. It proscribes certain types of sexual acts, but not "having sex" in general.

Hurr. Okay, in your world then, gay men should just have sex with women, right? Or they could abstain from sex altogether. This is a realistic approach and I salute your brilliant idea.

you seem to think that the conduct is unavoidable or something. I've heard this theory before, and frankly I think its crap

yeah how stupid for people to expect that they should be able to enjoy physical love with their partners without being murdered

This discussion started with my questioning you about what the bible says about a certain status that has only very recently even been considered to be a status.

Should women still be chattel? Should blacks still be treated as inferiors? Does flame feed on phlogiston? Just because an idea may be new does not mean that it is wrong. Sorry that your holy book is a little outdated.

You seem to ignore the fact that it's entirely possible for someone outside that status to engage in that conduct, which strikes me as odd

What?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:00 AM on January 27, 2006

Jesus was in Exodus? Damn, that fellow really does travel through space and time.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:54 AM PST on January 27

I didn't say he said that, fff. I noted that despite Jesus's prohibitions against such violent acts, religious people instead focused on and followed the precepts of the older books. Come on.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:01 AM on January 27, 2006

The more I read over my comment, fff, the most incomprehensible it is to me that you could read it that way.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:06 AM on January 27, 2006

Okay, in your world then, gay men should just have sex with women, right? Or they could abstain from sex altogether. This is a realistic approach and I salute your brilliant idea.

This, and your other comments, reveal that you've forgotten that we're not talking about what I believe or what you believe, but about what the Bible says. Likewise, we haven't been discussing what people "should" do.

On the topic of what people "should" do, however, do you believe that there should be no boundaries, legal, religious, moral or otherwise, regarding people's sexual conduct?

You seem to ignore the fact that it's entirely possible for someone outside that status to engage in that conduct, which strikes me as odd

What?

Just because someone votes for a Democrat once, twice or even 50 times doesn't make them a Democrat, does it? Their status is not determined by the conduct. How many times must someone vote for a Democrat in order to have their status become "Democrat?" What if they vote Democrat because they feel social pressure to do so? Are they then a Democrat? I hope that helps you understand what I'm talking about.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:10 AM on January 27, 2006

On the topic of what people "should" do, however, do you believe that there should be no boundaries, legal, religious, moral or otherwise, regarding people's sexual conduct?

Sure there should be boundaries. Here they are: only have sex with consenting, fully informed partners, who are also capable of consent. Other than that, go nuts. None of my business.

Just because someone votes for a Democrat once, twice or even 50 times doesn't make them a Democrat, does it?

If you engage in homosexual sex fifty times it's safe to say that you're a homosexual.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:27 AM on January 27, 2006

“If you engage in homosexual sex fifty times it's safe to say that you're a homosexual.”

Cool. 49. I’m not gay.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:37 PM on January 27, 2006

Heehee, ... but can you stop now? *Ponders horrible 'Betcha can't meat just one' joke*
posted by boaz at 4:24 PM on January 27, 2006

"If you engage in homosexual sex fifty times it's safe to say that you're a homosexual."

Or in prison.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:07 PM on January 27, 2006

Or bi.
posted by LordSludge at 7:55 PM on January 27, 2006

Or Tom Cruise.
posted by boaz at 8:30 PM on January 27, 2006

Or so I've heard.
posted by boaz at 8:31 PM on January 27, 2006

only 50? ; >
posted by amberglow at 8:42 PM on January 27, 2006