Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on April 20, 2023, 05:33:43 PM
-
Hi Gabriella, here is the new thread and my opening post
Not sure what you mean here by people who claim to have encountered Mohammed in their lives –
I think Hillside means people who claim to have met a risen spiritual personal mohammed do you mean the stories about Prophet Mohammed's companions and spouses in Arabia during the time period he was supposed to have lived?
I don’t see given the context how he can mean this. I feel moved to find instances where the word encounter is used in terms of literature here. Could your term ‘’encounter with stories’’ be used for any literature or is there an extra dimension to it in the case of Mohammed and the environment he interacted with?
He was just a man so once he is supposed to have died it is not part of mainstream Muslim tradition for Muslims who came after him to claim they encountered him.... or God for that matter
Stupid question but How does God therefore end up being central in Islam? Is he central in Islam? There is no equivalent belief to the claims by some Christians of encountering Jesus.
But is it true to say that you can encounter the Koran? And would it be fair to say that the Koran is for some Moslems the Word of God? I say "some" because I have no idea if that is universal belief amongst all Christians.
The Muslim faith belief is that they have the Quran - a book of his messages believed to be the revelations
To whom? or words of Allah/ God
So the actual word of God is embodied in the words of the Quran in the ink or Liquid crystals and materials which make up the words? communicated via "angel" Jibreel .
Like gold transported in a crucible, to use a metaphor?
Most Muslims don't claim they have encountered 1 or 3 supernatural entities
And yet they encounter the actual word of Allah only made available to man via an encounter with a supernatural entity - the Muslim faith as I understand it has a different vibe from the Christians - unless there are some Christians who don't believe it is possible to have personal encounters with God.
Our concept is that we know of God through words we read and that there is nothing comparable to God
I would suggest that a Christian could also sincerely say there is nothing comparable to God because if God can be compared to anything e.g. a man (like Jesus for example)
But this isn’t what Christians are doing, by comparing I think you are talking rather about equating here or anything else that we would "encounter" or make sense of, [/quote] And yet you encounter the word of Allah then God doesn't seem unique enough to be worthy of worship.
On the contrary there is enough in Christianity to still make God the supreme subject or object of worship. But feel free to expand on why this cannot be true. There are various (99 to be precise) characteristics/ attributes given to God such as "merciful" or "just" etc but not physical attributes ( though I think physical attributes are occasionally used metaphorically) .
But these are human attributes to. Yes they may be superior analogues of the human version but I take it that we are to understand that God is merciful and just etc.
Most Muslims don't seem to want to encounter their concept of God nor do they seem to want their concept of God to be like one of them
I think you would be surprised at the number of anybody who wouldn’t actually want to meet an incarnate or any version of God i.e. a man,
But they seem quite happy to have his word embodied in ink and paper and for Mohammed to have the supernatural encounter nor do they believe that an all-knowing God would need to become a man to understand anything
nor do I and that certainly isn’t the purpose or function of the incarnation in the bible.
I think it also fitting to say at this juncture that mainstream Christians are keen to point out the belief that Jesus was both Fully man and fully God without confusion of the two. In other words he is not a man shaped God. I would also challenge the claim that no comparisons are ever made between God and man. Take the comparison of the comprehensibility of God and Man expressed by yourself for starters.
And with that, I’ll hand the floor back to you.
-
Hi Vlad
Thanks for starting this thread on "encountering" God. Rather than breaking up my response to respond individually to each point you raised, as some points seem to be repeated, I thought it might be easier to provide a general response to some of the questions and ideas you have raised.
I think people can add an elevated i.e. mystical meaning to "encountering" the word of God, in so much as it moves them in a particular way, and yes they may believe they are in the presence of God when they read the words in a book, whereas reading about for example Prophet Mohammed or Cleopatra does not I think cause people to feel they are encountering Prophet Mohammed or Cleopatra. I think the feeling of being in the presence of God would be more to do with the descriptions of the nature of God e.g. that God is everywhere and all-powerful etc so it may inspire a sense of awe, and possibly people like the feeling they are in the presence of greatness and power so it would be understandable to interpret whatever sensations they are experiencing while reading the words as being in the presence of the entity being described. I am not aware of any method to independently verify if they are encountering or in the presence of any supernatural entity, so it can only ever be a subjective interpretation and reporting of experiences based on faith. Hence, it is also understandable that there would be some / many people who dismiss these interpretations of experiences as wishful thinking and not fact.
God / Allah is central in Islam through the consideration and efforts of Muslims in all aspects of their daily lives, to try to understand and practise the guidance in the Quran, which Muslims believe was provided through revelations given to Prophet Mohammed, as well as follow the guidance attributed to the Prophet Mohamed. The central idea of Islam is submission to the will of Allah. Of course, this doesn't happen in practice because people have different levels of motivation and ability to understand and implement the guidance and control or subsume their personal desires into the guidance due to nature/ nurture; hence there are so many different interpretations of the guidance, and Muslims often follow their own inclinations to interpret the guidance in a way that is in accordance with their personal desires or ignore the rules in the guidance in favour of their personal desires. That is a common theme amongst the human species - doing what they want, not following rules etc, which leads to innovation, change, and progress but may also result in criminal or morally unacceptable behaviour. When I refer to morality, I am referring to human understanding and implementation of morality and moral rules, which changes depending on time and place because people's priorities change depending on time and geographical location and socio-economic contexts.
I personally don't think the actual word of God is embodied in the ink that makes up the book we call the Quran. The Quran i.e. supposed "revelations from God" to Prophet Mohammed via angel Jibreel / Gabriel were transmitted by Prophet Mohammed orally to his followers, and then those who believed that the messages were revelations from the supernatural entity described in the revelations, memorised the revelations and transmitted them to others. These "revelations" happened over time and often in response to specific circumstances and context. They were only written down later, and eventually the revelations were collated and put in a particular order and incorporated in the form of a single book for replication, publication and distribution.
I can't speak for what other Muslims might believe about God being in the ink. There have been reports of some Muslims going crazy and committing violence due to a copy of the Quran being damaged but I don't know if they literally believe God is in the ink or if they just take damage to the Quran as a sign of disrespect and they have severe anger management issues.
Regarding your interpretation of encountering God in the Christian sense, did the disciples of Jesus encounter God? Or did they encounter a man?
My understanding of the Islamic perspective is that the Muslims in the time of Prophet Mohammed did not encounter God. There is a difference of thought/belief amongst Muslims about whether Prophet Mohammed ever encountered God or whether his described encounters on the Night Journey and Ascension to Heaven was with a supernatural entity described as an angel i.e. Jibreel.
I would agree that Muslims make a comparison between man and God to illustrate and emphasise their own limited human capabilities and the vast, limitless powers of the supernatural entity described as God/ Allah.
-
Hi Vlad
Thanks for starting this thread on "encountering" God. Rather than breaking up my response to respond individually to each point you raised, as some points seem to be repeated, I thought it might be easier to provide a general response to some of the questions and ideas you have raised.
I think people can add an elevated i.e. mystical meaning to "encountering" the word of God,
I’m not sure I can confess to adding anything to my experience or of the dishonesty that would entail. There are different definitions of the term mystical , on a spectrum. Identification with God, union with God, encounter with God, belief in God, view of God. So I am approaching our dialogue that one’s encounter is what it is. I think that makes your own vista of God and how you acquired it, mystical in the sense that it runs against your atheism at the time. in so much as it moves them in a particular way, and yes they may believe they are in the presence of God when they read the words in a book, whereas reading about for example Prophet Mohammed or Cleopatra does not I think cause people to feel they are encountering Prophet Mohammed or Cleopatra. I think the feeling of being in the presence of God would be more to do with the descriptions of the nature of God e.g. that God is everywhere and all-powerful etc so it may inspire a sense of awe, and possibly people like the feeling they are in the presence of greatness and power so it would be understandable to interpret whatever sensations they are experiencing while reading the words as being in the presence of the entity being described. I am not aware of any method to independently verify if they are encountering or in the presence of any supernatural entity, so it can only ever be a subjective interpretation and reporting of experiences based on faith. Hence, it is also understandable that there would be some / many people who dismiss these interpretations of experiences as wishful thinking and not fact.
I think there are a host of people for whom their experience can hardly be described as ‘wishful thinking’ in that they experience ego deconstruction. I’m thinking of the writer of Isaiah, Perhaps from what you have said Mohammed, St Augustine and John Bunyan. I would be interested in the warrant you think you have for dismissing powerful encounters or accepting the dismissal by others
God / Allah is central in Islam through the consideration and efforts of Muslims in all aspects of their daily lives, to try to understand and practise the guidance in the Quran, which Muslims believe was provided through revelations given to Prophet Mohammed, as well as follow the guidance attributed to the Prophet Mohamed.
So the words of the Quran and Mohammed are embodied in or at least mediated through a community who seek to show what the word of God is through thermselves? A similar goal exists in the church which is identified in the bible as the Body of Christ
I personally don't think the actual word of God is embodied in the ink that makes up the book we call the Quran.
To which the obvious question has to be ‘’if not the actual word then what?’’ The Quran i.e. supposed "revelations from God" to Prophet Mohammed via angel Jibreel / Gabriel were transmitted by Prophet Mohammed orally to his followers, and then those who believed that the messages were revelations from the supernatural entity described in the revelations, memorised the revelations and transmitted them to others. These "revelations" happened over time and often in response to specific circumstances and context. They were only written down later, and eventually the revelations were collated and put in a particular order and incorporated in the form of a single book for replication, publication and distribution.
And a similar trajectory can be found with the bible and I think in both our religions there are those who think the written word of God is the ‘’Dictated’’ word of God. The difference lies in Jesus being known as the word of God and as The Gospel of John ventures, the word was with God and the word was God.
I can't speak for what other Muslims might believe about God being in the ink. There have been reports of some Muslims going crazy and committing violence due to a copy of the Quran being damaged but I don't know if they literally believe God is in the ink or if they just take damage to the Quran as a sign of disrespect and they have severe anger management issues.
I would put that down to them not believing that God was as they used to say ’’Big enough, old enough and ugly enough to look after himself’’ Christ’s response to an armed response to those who had come to collect him for his official ‘kicking’ was to stay the hand of the disciple with the sword.Regarding your interpretation of encountering God in the Christian sense, did the disciples of Jesus encounter God? Or did they encounter a man?
They encountered both since I have said that mainstream Christians want to make it clear to themselves as to anyone else that Jesus is fully God and Fully man without confusion of the material or the divine.
My understanding of the Islamic perspective is that the Muslims in the time of Prophet Mohammed did not encounter God. There is a difference of thought/belief amongst Muslims about whether Prophet Mohammed ever encountered God or whether his described encounters on the Night Journey and Ascension to Heaven was with a supernatural entity described as an angel i.e. Jibreel.
They do tend to claim now that atheism wasn’t a thing then so that would make theism the default. I’m not so sure and there is still the question then of what moved them and indeed people in general from a vague theism to an Islamic or indeed any mediated version of theism.
-
I’m not sure I can confess to adding anything to my experience or of the dishonesty that would entail.
I wasn't trying to suggest dishonesty. I meant that our individuals experiences are open to interpretation in different ways depending on the nature/ nurture of the individual doing the interpreting.
There are different definitions of the term mystical , on a spectrum. Identification with God, union with God, encounter with God, belief in God, view of God. So I am approaching our dialogue that one’s encounter is what it is.
Agreed on the different definitions. My view is I don't know what I have encountered - my brain comes up with an interpretation of my experience, my brain can contemplate its thoughts /interpretations and wonder if the interpretations are reality, my brain can acknowledge that maybe it is impossible to know whether my reality is the same as everyone else's reality. My brain then makes a decision on the interpretation to go with out of the various interpretations it comes up with, which is probably influenced by the future outcome my brain desires.
I experience this sometimes in situations relatied to fear as well. I hear an unusual noise e.g. loud banging in the night at the window or my front door is open when I return home, my brain comes up with various interpretations of whether it's a dangerous intruder or something benign, and eventually makes a decision to investigate rather than run away because it decides getting hit over the head and possibly killed is a better way to "live" your life than standing there doing nothing one way or the other out of fear.
I think that makes your own vista of God and how you acquired it, mystical in the sense that it runs against your atheism at the time.
It certainly was disconcerting to have a thought I couldn't unthink. I guess you could describe that as an "encounter".
I think there are a host of people for whom their experience can hardly be described as ‘wishful thinking’ in that they experience ego deconstruction. I’m thinking of the writer of Isaiah, Perhaps from what you have said Mohammed, St Augustine and John Bunyan. I would be interested in the warrant you think you have for dismissing powerful encounters or accepting the dismissal by others
I think it's not so much a dismissal as acknowledging that alternative explanation is possible and I can't rule it out.
So the words of the Quran and Mohammed are embodied in or at least mediated through a community who seek to show what the word of God is through thermselves?
I'm not sure - my impression is the Muslims I have encountered do have an element of trying to convey their beliefs to others through their actions, and yes they seem to believe that these instructions on how to behave is from a higher source, and they seem to be trying to modify their behaviour to please that source. A similar goal exists in the church which is identified in the bible as the Body of Christ
Yes I can see why that would be their goal
To which the obvious question has to be ‘’if not the actual word then what?’’
I think it's a record of the word but I would have no problem throwing a Quran away e.g. if there were too many books and we needed to get rid of one.
And a similar trajectory can be found with the bible and I think in both our religions there are those who think the written word of God is the ‘’Dictated’’ word of God. The difference lies in Jesus being known as the word of God and as The Gospel of John ventures, the word was with God and the word was God.
As in Jesus would then be considered by many Christians to be like the Quran is to many Muslims?
I would put that down to them not believing that God was as they used to say ’’Big enough, old enough and ugly enough to look after himself’’ Christ’s response to an armed response to those who had come to collect him for his official ‘kicking’ was to stay the hand of the disciple with the sword.
In agreement with you there that if the Muslims who respond violently really believed God could look after himself they would control their response and stick to dialogue rather than violence. Also, some people who feel disrespected respond with violence because they fear that if they don't respond with violence the provocation will escalate as politeness is mistaken for weakness and a licence to repeat or increase the insults or offence.
They encountered both since I have said that mainstream Christians want to make it clear to themselves as to anyone else that Jesus is fully God and Fully man without confusion of the material or the divine.
Ok.
They do tend to claim now that atheism wasn’t a thing then so that would make theism the default. I’m not so sure and there is still the question then of what moved them and indeed people in general from a vague theism to an Islamic or indeed any mediated version of theism.
I tend to be happy with thinking that some words I read in the Quran seemed to convey that the author of those words seemed to know me and my thoughts/ desires that I barely realised or had admitted to myself. Which caused/ moved me to contemplate the concept of a god described (metaphorically) in the Quran that I guess represented something I started to believe could be real, but obviously I can't demonstrate exists and that "moved" me to eventually decide to become a Muslim. If it's just my thoughts that "moved" me, that's ok with me.
I don't know what moved others.
-
And a similar trajectory can be found with the bible and I think in both our religions there are those who think the written word of God is the ‘’Dictated’’ word of God. The difference lies in Jesus being known as the word of God and as The Gospel of John ventures, the word was with God and the word was God.
'Word' is an English translation of Greek 'Logos' which I suspect means more than just something written or spoken. Philo of Alexandria who lived at about the time of Jesus might give an idea as to what it represented. See lower down in this link :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
-
'Word' is an English translation of Greek 'Logos' which I suspect means more than just something written or spoken. Philo of Alexandria who lived at about the time of Jesus might give an idea as to what it represented. See lower down in this link :- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
Interesting read.
I had no idea the concept also existed in Sufi Islam - per your link the concept of logos in Sufism is used to relate the "Uncreated" (God) to the "Created" (humanity).
-
Interesting read.
I had no idea the concept also existed in Sufi Islam - per your link the concept of logos in Sufism is used to relate the "Uncreated" (God) to the "Created" (humanity).
Yes, there seems to be a similar idea associated with the mystics of many 'religions', the idea being to discover it within so that a union of the two is attained or to put it another way, the separation is dissolved.
-
I wasn't trying to suggest dishonesty. I meant that our individuals experiences are open to interpretation in different ways depending on the nature/ nurture of the individual doing the interpreting.
And both you and I, I assume have revised or have had our interpretations revised by experience to become theists.
My view is I don't know what I have encountered - my brain comes up with an interpretation of my experience, my brain can contemplate its thoughts /interpretations and wonder if the interpretations are reality, my brain can acknowledge that maybe it is impossible to know whether my reality is the same as everyone else's reality. My brain then makes a decision on the interpretation to go with out of the various interpretations it comes up with, which is probably influenced by the future outcome my brain desires.
Of course, but would you agree that you are now on a new trajectory in which theism is acceptable?
I experience this sometimes in situations relatied to fear as well. I hear an unusual noise e.g. loud banging in the night at the window or my front door is open when I return home, my brain comes up with various interpretations of whether it's a dangerous intruder or something benign, and eventually makes a decision to investigate rather than run away because it decides getting hit over the head and possibly killed is a better way to "live" your life than standing there doing nothing one way or the other out of fear.
It certainly was disconcerting to have a thought I couldn't unthink. I guess you could describe that as an "encounter".
I think it's not so much a dismissal as acknowledging that alternative explanation is possible and I can't rule it out.
I'm not sure - my impression is the Muslims I have encountered do have an element of trying to convey their beliefs to others through their actions, and yes they seem to believe that these instructions on how to behave is from a higher source, and they seem to be trying to modify their behaviour to please that source. Yes I can see why that would be their goal
I think it's a record of the word but I would have no problem throwing a Quran away e.g. if there were too many books and we needed to get rid of one.
But would you throw the last one out? As in Jesus would then be considered by many Christians to be like the Quran is to many Muslims?
You extend here my conception of what a muslim is but with qualification to do with the difference between a book and a life, I would say yes that's very broadly correct.
[/quote]
-
Yes, there seems to be a similar idea associated with the mystics of many 'religions', the idea being to discover it within so that a union of the two is attained or to put it another way, the separation is dissolved.
Not sure how you are relating union in mysticism with Logos theologies here.
-
VG,
I meant that our individuals experiences are open to interpretation in different ways depending on the nature/ nurture of the individual doing the interpreting.
No doubt. The narratives people use to explain their "individual experiences” though are justified or not with arguments – including arguments that indicate whether they actually “encountered” something rather only felt as though they encountered something. And those arguments are either sound or unsound according to their structure, not according to “the nature/ nurture of the individual doing the interpreting” (unless of course you want to extend the idea of the nature/ nurture of the individual to include the idea that the nature/nurture of some people means they accept rubbish arguments).
-
Not sure how you are relating union in mysticism with Logos theologies here.
In the sense that a theologian would use the word to explain the idea of a relationship between the Divine and man and a 'mystic' would use a method to discover such a relationship within and beyond the mental expressions of a theology. I believe 'religion' comes from a word meaning to re-bind which I suspect derives from the Biblical idea of Adam's fall or separation from God and the need to rejoin (as 2 separate entities). A 'mystic' tends towards transcendence of thought processes and may relate to the experience as union or merging with the divine or will remain silent.
-
Vlad,
Encountering God? Or the word of God? Or just some words?
FIFY
-
Vlad,
FIFY
Anyone?
-
VG,
No doubt. The narratives people use to explain their "individual experiences” though are justified or not with arguments – including arguments that indicate whether they actually “encountered” something rather only felt as though they encountered something. And those arguments are either sound or unsound according to their structure, not according to “the nature/ nurture of the individual doing the interpreting” (unless of course you want to extend the idea of the nature/ nurture of the individual to include the idea that the nature/nurture of some people means they accept rubbish arguments).
I'm sure there are people out there basking in the calm certainty of your agnostic atheism. Hillside.
-
In the sense that a theologian would use the word to explain the idea of a relationship between the Divine and man and a 'mystic' would use a method to discover such a relationship within and beyond the mental expressions of a theology. I believe 'religion' comes from a word meaning to re-bind which I suspect derives from the Biblical idea of Adam's fall or separation from God and the need to rejoin (as 2 separate entities). A 'mystic' tends towards transcendence of thought processes and may relate to the experience as union or merging with the divine or will remain silent.
I thought logos theology was about the link between the creator and created, in Christianity
The universe is Created through the word of God,Who is God and the divine will is carried out through Christ.
I’m sure what you say regarding mysticism is true but logos theology has cosmological as well as anthropological implications.
-
I thought logos theology was about the link between the creator and created, in Christianity
The universe is Created through the word of God,Who is God and the divine will is carried out through Christ.
I’m sure what you say regarding mysticism is true but logos theology has cosmological as well as anthropological implications.
Christian theology may well present the logos theory the way you have stated. In my message to Gabriella I was just suggesting that other 'religions' have similar ideas. Some may see Logos as Intelligence in the sense of that word's Latin origin - inter legere - to choose between. If I remember correctly, there is a similar Hindu concept of Sattwa as a conscious intelligent force which regulates two other forces - Rajas, sometimes seen as energy, and Tamas, sometimes seen as Mass. Intelligence, as the regulatory force, uses Energy to stir or stimulate Mass and uses Mass to stabilise Energy. It goes through phases of creation, sustenance, destruction and recreation. To me, theology is just the study of a God based belief system. I was using the word 'mystic' to try to distinguish between indoctrinatory methods of the theologian (via e.g.the Apostles' Creed), and the transcendental method of a mystic (e.g. Jesus).
-
Christian theology may well present the logos theory the way you have stated. In my message to Gabriella I was just suggesting that other 'religions' have similar ideas. Some may see Logos as Intelligence in the sense of that word's Latin origin - inter legere - to choose between. If I remember correctly, there is a similar Hindu concept of Sattwa as a conscious intelligent force which regulates two other forces - Rajas, sometimes seen as energy, and Tamas, sometimes seen as Mass. Intelligence, as the regulatory force, uses Energy to stir or stimulate Mass and uses Mass to stabilise Energy. It goes through phases of creation, sustenance, destruction and recreation. To me, theology is just the study of a God based belief system. I was using the word 'mystic' to try to distinguish between indoctrinatory methods of the theologian (via e.g.the Apostles' Creed), and the transcendental method of a mystic (e.g. Jesus).
Fair point although I think much of theology is an attempt to bridge the gap between the mystical and the intellectual and this is true of monotheists.
-
VG,
No doubt. The narratives people use to explain their "individual experiences” though are justified or not with arguments – including arguments that indicate whether they actually “encountered” something rather only felt as though they encountered something.
Justified to whom?
My experience of theistic belief is that I became conscious of / aware of my belief. I didn't try to justify my belief to myself with an argument. I don't count me thinking "this belief seems to be improving my quality of life" as an argument to justify my belief.
-
VG,
Justified to whom?
To whomever the holder of such beliefs expects them to be taken seriously.
My experience of theistic belief is that I became conscious of / aware of my belief. I didn't try to justify my belief to myself with an argument. I don't count me thinking "this belief seems to be improving my quality of life" as an argument to justify my belief.
If you’re indifferent to whether or not the objects of your belief are real provided you feel better about believing them to be real that’s a matter for you. We’re made differently that way – the truth of the claim would matter to me, but ok. In your shoes though I’d also be troubled at least I think by the behaviours of those who share your “true for me only” beliefs but then reify them to “true for you too” beliefs and behave accordingly. But again, I guess we’re different that way too.
-
VG,
To whomever the holder of such beliefs expects them to be taken seriously.
Ah well, in my case I am indifferent to whether people take them seriously or not, as the beliefs benefit me and they are not against the law and do not offend my morals so I stick with them. On that basis, I don't know and am indifferent to whether they benefit anyone else.
If you’re indifferent to whether or not the objects of your belief are real provided you feel better about believing them to be real that’s a matter for you. We’re made differently that way – the truth of the claim would matter to me, but ok. In your shoes though I’d also be troubled at least I think by the behaviours of those who share your “true for me only” beliefs but then reify them to “true for you too” beliefs and behave accordingly. But again, I guess we’re different that way too.
I am troubled by the behaviour of people who share my beliefs to the extent that I condemn any criminal behaviour or coercion or oppression and if I had an opportunity to try to prevent the behaviour and give them an alternative perspective, I would try to take it.
-
VG,
Ah well, in my case I am indifferent to whether people take them seriously or not, as the beliefs benefit me and they are not against the law and do not offend my morals so I stick with them. On that basis, I don't know and am indifferent to whether they benefit anyone else.
Clearly, which is why in Reply 9 I said “The narratives people use to explain…” rather than “…narratives you use to explain”. As I said though, I guess I care about what’s true above what’s comforting and you’re the other way around.
I am troubled by the behaviour of people who share my beliefs to the extent that I condemn any criminal behaviour or coercion or oppression and if I had an opportunity to try to prevent the behaviour and give them an alternative perspective, I would try to take it.
But the point rather was that you share with such people the same justification for your common beliefs – ie, “faith”. That you nuance your version with a “but true only for me” whereas they overreach to “and therefore true for you too” would make us uneasy bedfellows if I was in your shoes, but there you go. I guess by way of a counter-argument to that by the way you could equally say that the same of “true for me only” Christians and the Klu Klux Klan (an avowedly Christian organisation).
Ah well. At root though, that’s why I reject “faith” as an epistemic justification for any ”true for you too” truth claim – it’s all indistinguishable from just guessing no matter what its objects.
-
VG,
Clearly, which is why in Reply 9 I said “The narratives people use to explain…” rather than “…narratives you use to explain”. As I said though, I guess I care about what’s true above what’s comforting and you’re the other way around.
But the point rather was that you share with such people the same justification for your common beliefs – ie, “faith”. That you nuance your version with a “but true only for me” whereas they overreach to “and therefore true for you too” would make us uneasy bedfellows if I was in your shoes, but there you go. I guess by way of a counter-argument to that by the way you could equally say that the same of “true for me only” Christians and the Klu Klux Klan (an avowedly Christian organisation).
Ah well. At root though, that’s why I reject “faith” as an epistemic justification for any ”true for you too” truth claim – it’s all indistinguishable from just guessing no matter what its objects.
If I think it is possible to ascertain what is true, then in many cases I would care about what is true. There are some situations where I think being happy is more important than being right - in the sense of what is "true".
If I seriously entertain the belief/possibility of a god, rather than dismiss the concept/idea/ entity as nonsensical fantasy, then it seems to me that by the very nature of the concept I accept it goes hand in hand with the inability to determine if a god really exists - i.e. gods go hand in hand with faith. I appear to like this god I find in Islam and the requirement for faith appears to be part of its charm for me at the moment - it's an interesting change from being an atheist.
Having faith feels like it has opened up my mind/ heart to other experiences in life that I wouldn't have experienced if I hadn't tried this god in this religion. I appear to not have a good enough reason to forgo those feelings and experiences by giving up this faith...as yet.
-
Philosophically there is no empirical evidence for empiricism
Material evidence for materialism natural evidence for naturalism...particularly if you are arguing that the universe just is. Your justification for being a materialist and physicalism is unconvincing. Your commitment to scientism is obvious.
-
Fair point although I think much of theology is an attempt to bridge the gap between the mystical and the intellectual and this is true of monotheists.
You could be right. There are 'mystics' who appear to see the intellect as an obstacle that needs transcending rather than indulging. e.g.
Jesus : " Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of Heaven as a little child will not be able to enter therein."
Upanishads: " Let a Brahmin reject erudition and live as a child"
Sri Ramakrishna : "So long as one does not become simple like a child one does not get divine illumination."
Takuan: " Zen is to have the heart and soul of a little child."
Black Elk(Holy Man of Oglala Sioux): "Grown men may learn from very little children, for the hearts of little children are pure, and, therefore, the Great Spirit may show to them many things which older people miss."
Huang Po : "Those who seek the truth by means of intellect and learning only get further and further from it. Not until your thoughts cease, not until you abandon seeking for something, not until your mind is as motionless as stone will you be on the right road."
St Augustine: " You must be emptied of that which fills you so that you may be filled with that of which you are empty."
Abu l’Hasayn al Nuri : " Union with God is separation from all else and separation from all else is union with Him."
-
VG,
If I think it is possible to ascertain what is true, then in many cases I would care about what is true. There are some situations where I think being happy is more important than being right - in the sense of what is "true".
It is possible to ascertain what’s "true", and if you think that your happiness is sometimes more important than knowing what’s true then that’s up to you.
If I seriously entertain the belief/possibility of a god, rather than dismiss the concept/idea/ entity as nonsensical fantasy, then it seems to me that by the very nature of the concept I accept it goes hand in hand with the inability to determine if a god really exists - i.e. gods go hand in hand with faith. I appear to like this god I find in Islam and the requirement for faith appears to be part of its charm for me at the moment - it's an interesting change from being an atheist.
No doubt, but “seriously entertaining” the possibility of something must then include the conjectures of others about anything – Allah, God, Neptune, Zeus and Tooth Fairy included.
Having faith feels like it has opened up my mind/ heart to other experiences in life that I wouldn't have experienced if I hadn't tried this god in this religion. I appear to not have a good enough reason to forgo those feelings and experiences by giving up this faith...as yet.
Well, if that works for you… I’m not sure you can claim “wouldn't have experienced if I hadn't tried this god in this religion” with any confidence though – how would you know that for example the consolations of philosophy wouldn’t have done the same (or an even more profound) job?
Ah well.
-
Vlad,
Philosophically there is no empirical evidence for empiricism
Yes there is, provided you don’t pretend “materialism” means something other than its actual meaning. You know this already though as I've explained it to you many times but you always run away when I do it.
Material evidence for materialism natural evidence for naturalism...particularly if you are arguing that the universe just is.
Gibberish.
Your justification for being a materialist and physicalism is unconvincing. Your commitment to scientism is obvious.
How’s you unhealthy sexual interest in underage people going? After all, if you think it’s OK just to make up lies about me that are pretty much the polar opposite of anything I’ve ever said I don’t see why I shouldn’t be free to do the same about you right?
-
VG,
It is possible to ascertain what’s "true", and if you think that your happiness is sometimes more important than knowing what’s true then that’s up to you.
If gods are beyond the scope of scientific enquiry, how would you ascertain whether one exists?
No doubt, but “seriously entertaining” the possibility of something must then include the conjectures of others about anything – Allah, God, Neptune, Zeus and Tooth Fairy included.
Ok - not sure why that is a problem? Surely what someone else conjectures that appears to have no significant relevance to my life is their business? Gods and their relationship with individual and social morality is more interesting/ relevant to me and the way I live my life than Tooth Fairies. Within the category of gods, my interpretation of one may have more relevance and appeal to me than another for nature/nurture reasons.
Well, if that works for you… I’m not sure you can claim “wouldn't have experienced if I hadn't tried this god in this religion” with any confidence though – how would you know that for example the consolations of philosophy wouldn’t have done the same (or an even more profound) job?
Ah well.
No doubt there are many parts of philosophy that also have a profound impact. But like music - what piece specifically moves you more than another piece or how it moves you and the thoughts and feelings it evokes will be unique to you based on your nature/nurture. A supernatural god adds/ evokes a different nuance/ reaction in me to philosophy, not necessarily better, just different.
-
VG,
If gods are beyond the scope of scientific enquiry, how would you ascertain whether one exists?
Or leprechauns for that matter too. I have no idea, but fortunately (for me) that’s not my problem. If someone wants to posit “god(s)” and to situate that conjecture “beyond the scope of scientific enquiry” then if they also want me to take their claim seriously it’s their job to find another means of verification.
If on the other hand the theist confines herself to “I have no means of justifying this belief even to myself but I feel better for believing it to be true nonetheless so I treat it as “true for me only” claim” as you I think do then there’s nothing for others to consider.
Ok - not sure why that is a problem? Surely what someone else conjectures that appears to have no significant relevance to my life is their business? Gods and their relationship with individual and social morality is more interesting/ relevant to me and the way I live my life than Tooth Fairies. Within the category of gods, my interpretation of one may have more relevance and appeal to me than another for nature/nurture reasons.
It's only a problem when people who believe any of these conjectures to be true think their beliefs to be other than epistemically worthless – especially if they then behave accordingly.
Like this:
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/mob-lynching-blasphemy-pakistan-mardan-b2334264.html
No doubt there are many parts of philosophy that also have a profound impact. But like music - what piece specifically moves you more than another piece or how it moves you and the thoughts and feelings it evokes will be unique to you based on your nature/nurture. A supernatural god adds/ evokes a different nuance/ reaction in me to philosophy, not necessarily better, just different.
Yes, but the difference between music and religion in your example is that people aren’t beaten to death for blaspheming against Mozart, countless lives aren’t ruined because Beethoven said gays are sinners, no-one goes to schools segregated as Bach-ist vs Monteverdi-ist where their education consist only of endlessly repeating their respective music scores etc. In other words, you’re making a type of category error – subjective aesthetic phenomena vs (supposedly) objective and intervening faiths.
-
VG,
Or leprechauns for that matter too. I have no idea, but fortunately (for me) that’s not my problem. If someone wants to posit “god(s)” and to situate that conjecture “beyond the scope of scientific enquiry” then if they also want me to take their claim seriously it’s their job to find another means of verification.
If on the other hand the theist confines herself to “I have no means of justifying this belief even to myself but I feel better for believing it to be true nonetheless so I treat it as “true for me only” claim” as you I think do then there’s nothing for others to consider.
It's only a problem when people who believe any of these conjectures to be true think their beliefs to be other than epistemically worthless – especially if they then behave accordingly.
Like this:
https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/mob-lynching-blasphemy-pakistan-mardan-b2334264.html
Yes, but the difference between music and religion in your example is that people aren’t beaten to death for blaspheming against Mozart, countless lives aren’t ruined because Beethoven said gays are sinners, no-one goes to schools segregated as Bach-ist vs Monteverdi-ist where their education consist only of endlessly repeating their respective music scores etc. In other words, you’re making a type of category error – subjective aesthetic phenomena vs (supposedly) objective and intervening faiths.
That is because music has nothing to say about morality. The comparison between morality and music is to highlight that what moves you or resonates with you morally or musically is based on an emotional response. It is not just a reasoned response.
The issue is the thought process behind how some humans seek to enforce moral positions or defend values or other abstract concepts that they consider to be sacred or to be held in reverence, regardless of whether the deeply -held personal values involve gods or not. I am not really interested in narrowing the focus to gods or religions and ignoring the basic human instinct some people have to find reasons to hurt each other people. When I was an atheist my approach to hurting people was similar to my approach now that I am a theist. Inserting a god into the mix hasn't changed my basic nature in how I respond to other people or turned me from being law-abiding to a criminal or vice versa, but it has given me a different line of focus on certain abstract moral issues.
-
VG,
That is because music has nothing to say about morality. The comparison between morality and music is to highlight that what moves you or resonates with you morally or musically is based on an emotional response. It is not just a reasoned response.
But the comparison still fails because it conflates expressions of subjective experiences with claims of objective facts. No-one gets hung for not liking Mozart or for arguing that Bartok wasn’t a good composer, whereas these poor guys:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-65523996
You’re mixing up here your belief that you feel comforted by the idea of a god (which no-one doubts) with your belief that there is a god (which many doubt).
The issue is the thought process behind how some humans seek to enforce moral positions or defend values or other abstract concepts that they consider to be sacred or to be held in reverence, regardless of whether the deeply -held personal values involve gods or not. I am not really interested in narrowing the focus to gods or religions and ignoring the basic human instinct some people have to find reasons to hurt each other people. When I was an atheist my approach to hurting people was similar to my approach now that I am a theist. Inserting a god into the mix hasn't changed my basic nature in how I respond to other people or turned me from being law-abiding to a criminal or vice versa, but it has given me a different line of focus on certain abstract moral issues.
But people whose morality is essentially aesthetic generally don’t “seek to enforce moral positions or defend values or other abstract concepts that they consider to be sacred or to be held in reverence…”, whereas those whose morality is (supposedly) divinely dictated often do.
That’s the point – “the thought process behind” moral positions is what determines what people do with those positions, which what matters.
-
Because a person actually believes in the existence of a God, he is comforted by that belief. You can't expect a person to be comforted by the belief in a God if he has any doubt about the actual existence of a God....regardless of what others believe.
-
Why would belief in a God be comforting?
-
Sriram,
Because a person actually believes in the existence of a God, he is comforted by that belief. You can't expect a person to be comforted by the belief in a God if he has any doubt about the actual existence of a God....regardless of what others believe.
What question do you think you're answering with that "because"?
As for whether you can feel comforted by a belief in a god without being able to justify (to yourself or to anyone else) that belief, you'd better ask VG that question.
-
VG,
But the comparison still fails because it conflates expressions of subjective experiences with claims of objective facts. No-one gets hung for not liking Mozart or for arguing that Bartok wasn’t a good composer, whereas these poor guys:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-65523996
You're confused - the reality is that religious and non-religious people can both have an aesthetic preference for a moral value that does not lead them to kill others who disagree with their preference.
The issue is problematic when people are killed for expressing something someone else with power over them doesn't like and it's irrelevant if it is a claim of objective fact or a political opinion or a moral belief or a preference. There are a long list of dissidents and whistle blowers who are killed for expressing a preference for a moral value or political outlook that is opposed by their government e.g. expressing the moral value of exposing corruption of their leaders and trying to hold them accountable or opposing genocide or racism has been shown to result in trials and untimely deaths. That you prefer to focus on where a dispute concerns religion as opposed to politics or any other ideological statement is due to your particular bias. The same way a Communist may focus on negative stories related to capitalist societies.
You’re mixing up here your belief that you feel comforted by the idea of a god (which no-one doubts) with your belief that there is a god (which many doubt).
As a side issue if we're being accurate, I'm not sure I expressed a belief that I feel comforted by the idea of a god. Not sure what you mean by "comfort" when used in this context because I have always thought being an atheist was more comforting - I felt comfort when I believed there was nothing after death - you just cease to exist and that's you done. I have zero desire to be in the presence of any god, reunite with dead relatives after I die, nor do I believe my dead relatives are watching over me etc, etc. I derive comfort from my memories of the dead and I would derive comfort if I believed my family would move on with their lives when I die, except where memories of me bring them comfort. Not sure how you're using the word "comfort".
I believe there is a god, yes. Any benefit I derive from that belief only works if I actually believe there is a god.
What I was trying to express was my belief that my life works out better with a belief in the existence of a god. You can recognise that something seems to work better for you without feeling comforted by it. My life works out better if I restrict my speed when driving - I don't feel comforted by driving slower - I dislike driving at less than 100 mph on a motorway where there are no obvious hazards - it's boring and I feel restless and restricted. I enjoy driving fast and I enjoy driving dangerously. I just recognise my life works out better if I drive slower than the more enjoyable speed I would prefer. So when I encourage my children to believe in a god or follow Islam, I don't do it on the basis of them feeling comforted, but on the basis that I believe it would be in their best interests even if it isn't obviously comforting - I'm not sure that "comforting" would be the right word to use to describe a belief that you are constantly under scrutiny and judgement and being held accountable for your actions. Not sure a straitjacket would be described as comforting by the person wearing it - would it? I don't find not eating or drinking for long periods of time for 30 days comforting.
But people whose morality is essentially aesthetic generally don’t “seek to enforce moral positions or defend values or other abstract concepts that they consider to be sacred or to be held in reverence…”, whereas those whose morality is (supposedly) divinely dictated often do.
Ah but we were discussing all the people who throughout history have sought to enforce moral positions that they consider sacred or to be held in reverence by killing people who oppose them - gods are optional in this scenario as we both know the issue is the behaviour of individual people.
There are people who believe in gods who do not seek to enforce moral positions on others by trying to kill them.
There are people who don't believe in gods who do seek to enforce moral positions on others by killing them
That’s the point – “the thought process behind” moral positions is what determines what people do with those positions, which what matters.
Yes there is a problem if the thought process is that you can kill people who oppose you.
-
Why would belief in a God be comforting?
No idea. Depends what "comforting" means in this context. I will wait for BHS or Sriram to explain.
-
VG,
You're confused - the reality is that religious and non-religious people can both have an aesthetic preference for a moral value that does not lead them to kill others who disagree with their preference.
No, you are. Yes, the reality is that both groups can have “an aesthetic preference for a moral value that does not lead them to kill others”, but it’s also the reality that only one of those groups can also have moral certainties that do lead them to kill people who don’t agree.
Again: no Mozart fan will kill another for saying the Mozart was rubbish; routinely though we see religious people killing others for blaspheming about their gods.
Why do you suppose that is?
The issue is problematic when people are killed for expressing something someone else with power over them doesn't like and it's irrelevant if it is a claim of objective fact or a political opinion or a moral belief or a preference.
No it isn’t irrelevant. Can you think of an example of a blasphemer being beaten to death or executed in the name of beliefs that aren’t thought to be objective facts?
No, nor can I. Why do you suppose that is?
There are a long list of dissidents and whistle blowers who are killed for expressing a preference for a moral value or political outlook that is opposed by their government e.g. expressing the moral value of exposing corruption of their leaders and trying to hold them accountable or opposing genocide or racism has been shown to result in trials and untimely deaths. That you prefer to focus on where a dispute concerns religion as opposed to politics or any other ideological statement is due to your particular bias. The same way a Communist may focus on negative stories related to capitalist societies.
No, still wrong. Someone being killed for, say, exposing corruption isn’t being killed by someone who thinks he has the moral high ground (based on moral certainties written in “holy” texts) at all. You can point out if you like that people are murdered for all sorts of wicked reasons so it’s no big deal that people do it for religiously good ones too, but that’s to miss the point. Religions arrogate to themselves privileged status in many societies – and the more fundamentalist they are, the more privileged they typically become as theocracies – and so often people in their thrall will think themselves to be morally good for beating to death a blasphemer in the street. After all, they’re just doing what their god would want right?
And they know this how? That’s right – because it’s written in a morally unimpeachable book.
And yet, brought up in different circumstances there’s no particular reason that I know of to think those same people would be driven to kill because they’d then have turned out to be as morally bankrupt as the local gangster or street thug. That’s the point here – religious certainties can give people reasons to behave appallingly in ways they would never do otherwise, and all the while cloaking themselves in moral virtue too.
As a side issue if we're being accurate, I'm not sure I expressed a belief that I feel comforted by the idea of a god. Not sure what you mean by "comfort" when used in this context because I have always thought being an atheist was more comforting - I felt comfort when I believed there was nothing after death - you just cease to exist and that's you done. I have zero desire to be in the presence of any god, reunite with dead relatives after I die, nor do I believe my dead relatives are watching over me etc, etc. I derive comfort from my memories of the dead and I would derive comfort if I believed my family would move on with their lives when I die, except where memories of me bring them comfort. Not sure how you're using the word "comfort".
By “comforting” I was summarising your “I tend to be happy with thinking that some words I read in the Quran seemed to convey that the author of those words seemed to know me and my thoughts/ desires that I barely realised or had admitted to myself” etc, but if you prefer another term for being made happy by that then so be it.
I believe there is a god, yes. Any benefit I derive from that belief only works if I actually believe there is a god.
What I was trying to express was my belief that my life works out better with a belief in the existence of a god. You can recognise that something seems to work better for you without feeling comforted by it. My life works out better if I restrict my speed when driving - I don't feel comforted by driving slower - I dislike driving at less than 100 mph on a motorway where there are no obvious hazards - it's boring and I feel restless and restricted. I enjoy driving fast and I enjoy driving dangerously. I just recognise my life works out better if I drive slower than the more enjoyable speed I would prefer. So when I encourage my children to believe in a god or follow Islam, I don't do it on the basis of them feeling comforted, but on the basis that I believe it would be in their best interests even if it isn't obviously comforting - I'm not sure that "comforting" would be the right word to use to describe a belief that you are constantly under scrutiny and judgement and being held accountable for your actions. Not sure a straitjacket would be described as comforting by the person wearing it - would it? I don't find not eating or drinking for long periods of time for 30 days comforting.
If you need that belief to behave well that’s also a matter for you. Some of us don’t though, let alone a belief in a celestial Kim Jong Un (“you are constantly under scrutiny and judgement and being held accountable for your actions”).
In any case though this seems all backwards to me – “I behave better than I otherwise would for having a belief, therefore the belief is true”. Surely the epistemology of the belief should stand or fall on its own terms shouldn’t it regardless of how it would make you behave it was true?
Ah but we were discussing all the people who throughout history have sought to enforce moral positions that they consider sacred or to be held in reverence by killing people who oppose them - gods are optional in this scenario as we both know the issue is the behaviour of individual people.
“We” weren’t, you were. In any case though, “sacred”, “reverence” etc are themselves at least quasi-religious terms. (Non-religious) moral philosophers for example on the other had develop and argue their positions on their merits, not because they “revere” them or think them to be “sacred”.
That’s rather the point in fact.
There are people who believe in gods who do not seek to enforce moral positions on others by trying to kill them.
Yes I know there are such people. There are also though people who rely on the moral certainties of their various faiths precisely to justify killing people.
There are people who don't believe in gods who do seek to enforce moral positions on others by killing them
Can you think of any? I can think of lots of reasons for non-religious people to kill, but moral ones?
Yes there is a problem if the thought process is that you can kill people who oppose you.
Er, yes. And if the “thought process” leads you to think that a morally perfect “holy” text tells you not only that you can kill people but that you should kill them for, say, blasphemy how does that sit with you sharing the same conviction that there is a god who is morally perfect?
-
VG,
No idea. Depends what "comforting" means in this context. I will wait for BHS or Sriram to explain.
See above. If you don’t like “comforting” then by all means use “makes me feel happy” if you prefer, but I don’t see that there’s much of a difference really.
-
VG,
No, you are. Yes, the reality is that both groups can have “an aesthetic preference for a moral value that does not lead them to kill others”, but it’s also the reality that only one of those groups can also have moral certainties that do lead them to kill people who don’t agree.
Again: no Mozart fan will kill another for saying the Mozart was rubbish; routinely though we see religious people killing others for blaspheming about their gods.
Why do you suppose that is?
We've done this argument so many times before and my response is the same as all the previous times. Religion is open to interpretation, so disagree that anyone can have moral certainty. The evidence is that religious people routinely disagree on what is moral, as do non-religious people. Both groups have some members who are prepared to kill to enforce their moral interpretations, so you will have to examine the context of the political, social and economic environment, their cultural and family background, their personal circumstances and the individual's ability to regulate their emotions in order to find an answer to why a particular person killed someone, while other members of the group did not.
The example about musical preferences was to show the similar basis on which people choose their moral preferences - i.e. they have an emotional reaction to the sensory input though they would probably also be influenced by their technical reasoned analysis before they make a choice.
The Quran does not say to kill or punish someone for blasphemy or who says Islam, Allah or Mohammed are rubbish. When people do so, they must therefore be influenced by their own instincts, preferences and interpretations based on their nature/ nurture.
No it isn’t irrelevant. Can you think of an example of a blasphemer being beaten to death or executed in the name of beliefs that aren’t thought to be objective facts?
No, nor can I. Why do you suppose that is?
You probably can't because you have a very simplistic way of looking at a complex issue, and this is a reflection of your bias. There isn't one simple, single reason why people are killed. People are usually killed as a means to an end.
Assuming "blasphemer" means anyone who goes against the current official orthodoxy or dogmatic belief, I would say many people who were killed in the name of Communism or Capitalism are not being killed based on beliefs that are thought to be objective fact. They are being killed as a means to an end e.g. revolutionary necessity in order to secure and defend the revolution, or to counter threats to the establishment. The ideas behind the revolution or opposers of revolution e.g. "fairness" of distribution of wealth or the labour theory of value or the right to private ownership are beliefs that are not thought to be objective facts. However, it is too simplistic to say the people who are being killed are being killed in defence of a belief.
Are climate activists killed by governments or private corporations killed in the name of beliefs about objective facts or are they killed due to the greed of a few individuals? The Hungarian scientist, Ignaz Semmelweis, was shunned by other scientists for going against the miasma theory of disease transmission in relation to puerperal fever. He was dismissed from his position at Vienna hospital and harassed by the medical community in Vienna, and eventually committed to an asylum by his colleagues where he was beaten and died. He wasn't vindicated until later when the germ theory of disease was developed. But I would not categorise it as simplistically as being punished in the name of science or a belief about objective facts. Nor would I suggest that science should be abandoned because of the reaction of a few individual scientists in Vienna.
No, still wrong. Someone being killed for, say, exposing corruption isn’t being killed by someone who thinks he has the moral high ground (based on moral certainties written in “holy” texts) at all. You can point out if you like that people are murdered for all sorts of wicked reasons so it’s no big deal that people do it for religiously good ones too, but that’s to miss the point. Religions arrogate to themselves privileged status in many societies – and the more fundamentalist they are, the more privileged they typically become as theocracies – and so often people in their thrall will think themselves to be morally good for beating to death a blasphemer in the street. After all, they’re just doing what their god would want right?
And they know this how? That’s right – because it’s written in a morally unimpeachable book.
Except it isn't written in the book that they should punish blasphemers - so I suggest you at least get your facts right before you try to make a bad argument.
And you have been corrected on this point about moral certainty and religion many times before - books and words including holy texts are open to interpretation, especially in relation to morals and ethics. Hence, despite laws contained in statutes, we have courts and judges and juries, and processes of appeal and decisions being over-ruled. So there is no moral certainty as rules in holy books are subject to change and reinterpretation, depending on context.
And yet, brought up in different circumstances there’s no particular reason that I know of to think those same people would be driven to kill because they’d then have turned out to be as morally bankrupt as the local gangster or street thug. That’s the point here – religious certainties can give people reasons to behave appallingly in ways they would never do otherwise, and all the while cloaking themselves in moral virtue too.
Any feelings of certainty about any issue including religion are the responsibility of the person whose brain generated those feelings, based on their nature/nurture.
By “comforting” I was summarising your “I tend to be happy with thinking that some words I read in the Quran seemed to convey that the author of those words seemed to know me and my thoughts/ desires that I barely realised or had admitted to myself” etc, but if you prefer another term for being made happy by that then so be it.
I was using "happy" here as meaning "satisfied" with a belief I had reached rather than using "happy" to mean a feeling of comfort, joy or pleasure.
If you need that belief to behave well that’s also a matter for you. Some of us don’t though, let alone a belief in a celestial Kim Jong Un (“you are constantly under scrutiny and judgement and being held accountable for your actions”).
Sure, you're entitled to your assessment or belief that you behave as well with your lack of belief as you would if you believed in a higher power. That's a matter for you though others may hold a different opinion about your behaviour or theirs.
In any case though this seems all backwards to me – “I behave better than I otherwise would for having a belief, therefore the belief is true”. Surely the epistemology of the belief should stand or fall on its own terms shouldn’t it regardless of how it would make you behave it was true?
The belief that it is true exists and is the starting point. My opinion /observation is that I behave better as a result of the belief. I think this is due to my nature/nurture when I interpret the beliefs. This reinforces the belief but is not the cause of it.
“We” weren’t, you were. In any case though, “sacred”, “reverence” etc are themselves at least quasi-religious terms. (Non-religious) moral philosophers for example on the other had develop and argue their positions on their merits, not because they “revere” them or think them to be “sacred”.
That’s rather the point in fact.
Yes I know there are such people. There are also though people who rely on the moral certainties of their various faiths precisely to justify killing people.
Can you think of any? I can think of lots of reasons for non-religious people to kill, but moral ones?
See above for the reasons why people kill - they think killing is morally justified as a means to an end or in defence of the greater good. This applies to religious and non-religious people. Both can see an idea or a cause as sacred and worth dying for or killing for.
Er, yes. And if the “thought process” leads you to think that a morally perfect “holy” text tells you not only that you can kill people but that you should kill them for, say, blasphemy how does that sit with you sharing the same conviction that there is a god who is morally perfect?
As I said, you have been corrected on this many times before. I suggest you firstly get your facts straight about what is said in the book, and secondly revisit the response you have been given many times before that words are interpreted by people and their interpretations often differ due to nature/ nurture.