Searching for GOD...

[floo]

If any gods exist why make their existence only a matter of faith? No one has ever put forward any credible evidence to substantiate their existence.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I have to admit that find this kind of attitude very difficult to understand. The existence or otherwise of one or more gods must be a matter of fact - they either exist or not. I don't see how one can just decide to believe or not based on utility.

If it is impossible to test for the supernatural I have no method to decide as a matter of fact, so I can only decide as a matter of belief.

I simply don't find any of the arguments, or supposed evidence, for any gods to be in the least bit convincing, so I don't believe. I cannot see how it can be a choice - I cannot change what I find convincing.

I agree that you cannot change what you find convincing. My experience is that a religion or concept can be convincing and the existence of the god that goes with that concept is a belief as it cannot be objectively determined.

To an extent, I agree in this particular sort of conflict situation but many religions involve believing that your faith is true and other people are (at the very least) mistaken - which is a situation ripe for exploitation. If not direct exploitation for conflict, it can lead to more low level prejudice.

There may also be (depending on the particular religion, denomination, or cult) problems with wider society regarding attitudes to, for example, sexual orientation, contraception, or the role of women.

The other problem is that as soon as you open the door to belief (in the objective truth of something) without adequate evidence or reasoning, then who can tell the 'extremists' that they are wrong? I recall David Cameron as PM, after some terrorist atrocity, confidently declaring that the perpetrators "did not serve any god" - eh? Has he got a list of "true gods"? What would that even mean - that they all exist? It's nonsense - the terrorists have just as much 'reason' (none at all) to believe in their god as the 'moderates' have to believe in theirs.

Difference of opinion about what is right or good for a society or community or a family is inevitable as different people have different needs and different ethical motivations. I personally accept that conflict as part of belonging to a society and we have developed institutions over the centuries to try and manage conflict in a less violent or destructive way - it doesn't always work e.g. the UN has little power to enforce the moral or legal positions it adopts, Britain is leaving the EU, politicians may face aggression when trying to address an audience. If someone holds a belief that you disagree with you are free to debate it with them and try to convince them to your POV and to lobby for a law to be introduced to restrict them from acting on their beliefs.

I do not see religion as being a special problem for this democratic  process - it's just another influence on people's decision-making process, along with the other beliefs that we open the door to based on culture, politics, education, emotional attachments, aspirations etc. which also results in prejudice. Prejudice and beliefs are part of being human.

As for the extremists - society decides on its laws and it decides on how to deal with people who break those laws. It doesn't matter if a 20 year old woman argues that they are morally justified in believing that some 15 year old girls or boys are capable of consenting to have sex with them - society isn't interested in their justification for their particular moral perspective or beliefs, society merely enforces the laws that society has set. For the extremist, if the law is that you cannot commit acts of terrorism, any extremist committing a terrorist act risks conviction and imprisonment. I would tell the extremist they are wrong based on the law of the land.

[ekim]

Just to clarify, although Armstrong is deeply passionate about all things religious the only agenda I can see from her books is religious unity between all religions and a deep heart felt need to show that compassion for all is uppermost, saying that Christians are not big fans of Armstrong.

It may be that Karen Armstrong is indulging in what used to be called the Perennial Philosophy.  You might find this article interesting ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy

St.  Augustine made this statement at one stage in his life but later retracted it.  "That which is known as the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist, from the beginning of the human race until the time when Christ came in the flesh, at which time the true religion, which already existed began to be called Christianity."

[Gonnagle]

Dear ekim,

Thanks for the link, and it sounds about right to me and it echo's my thought that there is a truth in all religions which is why I am fond of saying my religion ( Christianity ) is my home not my prison, I love it when Sriram and Gabriella open up about their religions, and I will go further and say this forum needs more Srirams, more Gabriellas!

As for St Augustine, ain't he the bloke that gave us that nonsense about original sin

And regarding this debate about which came first, it all seems a bit chicken and egg to me

Gonnagle.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If any gods exist why make their existence only a matter of faith? No one has ever put forward any credible evidence to substantiate their existence.

Depends on what you mean by “exist”. Credible evidence surely only applies to the natural world and therefore can’t be provided for the supernatural. If there was credible evidence for it, presumably it would cease to be a supernatural concept - that’s why the supernatural is a subjective faith position.

[ippy]

Gabriella I see your posts and we're unlikely to find any common ground about religion, because I can't see that there's anything, any reason to spend precious time dealing with religion, religious belief or faith, however you may wish to term these things, the only time it bothers me is when I see so many spending their precious time on something that, is to me, so useless, meaningless and pointless.

It's all to do with the total lack of any good reason to bother with something that is, to me, so devoid of any evidence that would persuade me to want any involvement with it or take the bother to look into religion, for starters, but that's just my pov.

I really couldn't care less how much and how devout people are or how much of their time is spent on these beliefs whatever people do in their own time is up to them, and I can assure you I would be the first one to be shoulder to shoulder with believers if there were to be any kind of persecution going on against them 

My gripe with religions is where, they all want privileges, which go from the mildly silly, to really stupid and then on to unjust followed by what I believe is your religion, my apologies if I've got it wrong, Islam, where freedom of speech is under attack from it when anybody makes one of the many types minor comments or cartoons that can be made about it, well we all know where that can lead, and it doesn't involve a pleasant walk in the park on a sunny day. 

For the life of me I cant see why anyone needs to hold any one or the other of these religious beliefs to go into the more philosophical side of their thoughts about life in general, I'm sure there are many famous philosophers that did and still have standing in the subject and the religious side of subject too which is fine, go for their writings just ignore the superstition based parts of their writings.

Un-evidenced tosh will always remain as Un-evidenced tosh until such times?

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gabriella,

If it is impossible to test for the supernatural I have no method to decide as a matter of fact, so I can only decide as a matter of belief.

Would you agree therefore that there's no reason to expect others to treat the belief as a fact - for example by describing it as such to schoolchildren?   

[Stranger]

If it is impossible to test for the supernatural I have no method to decide as a matter of fact, so I can only decide as a matter of belief.

But surely it must actually be a matter of fact - any particular god either does exist or does not? If a claim of fact cannot be tested, then why take it seriously?

For me the whole supernatural is a "Russell's teapot" - I can see no reason at all to take it seriously.

Difference of opinion about what is right or good for a society or community or a family is inevitable as different people have different needs and different ethical motivations. I personally accept that conflict as part of belonging to a society and we have developed institutions over the centuries to try and manage conflict in a less violent or destructive way - it doesn't always work e.g. the UN has little power to enforce the moral or legal positions it adopts, Britain is leaving the EU, politicians may face aggression when trying to address an audience. If someone holds a belief that you disagree with you are free to debate it with them and try to convince them to your POV and to lobby for a law to be introduced to restrict them from acting on their beliefs.

I do not see religion as being a special problem for this democratic  process - it's just another influence on people's decision-making process, along with the other beliefs that we open the door to based on culture, politics, education, emotional attachments, aspirations etc. which also results in prejudice. Prejudice and beliefs are part of being human.

The problem is though, that (some varieties of) religion tell their adherents that they are absolutely, unquestionably right - no doubt allowed. It can have the effect of closing minds to other points of view.

As for the extremists - society decides on its laws and it decides on how to deal with people who break those laws. It doesn't matter if a 20 year old woman argues that they are morally justified in believing that some 15 year old girls or boys are capable of consenting to have sex with them - society isn't interested in their justification for their particular moral perspective or beliefs, society merely enforces the laws that society has set. For the extremist, if the law is that you cannot commit acts of terrorism, any extremist committing a terrorist act risks conviction and imprisonment. I would tell the extremist they are wrong based on the law of the land.

Again, (some) religion can instil the notion that their followers are only answerable to a higher authority than the law. This doesn't only apply to terrorists, there instances like guest houses refusing gay couples.

You argued before that belief in god and religion can affect behaviour, perspective, and goals in a positive way and now you seem to be saying that it doesn't really affect behaviour significantly in a negative way. This strikes me as somewhat inconsistent.

I would argue that religion can indeed have a powerful impact on people's attitudes and behaviour and that is very far from universally positive. I used to know some Christian fundamentalists quite well and I recall one of them in particular being very conflicted about homosexuality. He was a naturally open, kind, and accepting sort of person but felt the need to be disapproving because of (what he considered to be) the clear teaching of Christianity.

You also didn't really address the open door - if people decide on matters of fact without reasoning or evidence (create their own 'alternative facts'), then how can they really criticise those who do the same thing and arrive at totally different (and potentially dangerous) conclusions?

[Nearly Sane]

Catching up as usual after the hours of page can't be displayed... *sigh*

Stranger

Agree with all you say.

Have sent you PM about how I deal with similar issues

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

But surely it must actually be a matter of fact - any particular god either does exist or does not? If a claim of fact cannot be tested, then why take it seriously?

For me the whole supernatural is a "Russell's teapot" - I can see no reason at all to take it seriously.

Just to note too that any significance, meaning, usefulness in your life etc that the belief gives you tells you precisely diddly-squat about whether or not there's a factually true object - gods, lucky rabbits' feet, whatever - underpinning it. Lots of anecdotes do not in other words constitute epistemological data.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But surely it must actually be a matter of fact - any particular god either does exist or does not? If a claim of fact cannot be tested, then why take it seriously?

Interpretations of personal experiences cannot be tested as fact but I still take my experiences and interpretations seriously.

For me the whole supernatural is a "Russell's teapot" - I can see no reason at all to take it seriously.

Yes I get that. I felt the same way when I was an atheist - that’s why I was an atheist.

The problem is though, that (some varieties of) religion tell their adherents that they are absolutely, unquestionably right - no doubt allowed. It can have the effect of closing minds to other points of view.

Again, (some) religion can instil the notion that their followers are only answerable to a higher authority than the law. This doesn't only apply to terrorists, there instances like guest houses refusing gay couples.

You argued before that belief in god and religion can affect behaviour, perspective, and goals in a positive way and now you seem to be saying that it doesn't really affect behaviour significantly in a negative way. This strikes me as somewhat inconsistent.

I would argue that religion can indeed have a powerful impact on people's attitudes and behaviour and that is very far from universally positive. I used to know some Christian fundamentalists quite well and I recall one of them in particular being very conflicted about homosexuality. He was a naturally open,
kind, and accepting sort of person but felt the need to be disapproving because of (what he considered to be) the clear teaching of Christianity.

You also didn't really address the open door - if people decide on matters of fact without reasoning or evidence (create their own 'alternative facts'), then how can they really criticise those who do the same thing and arrive at totally different (and potentially dangerous) conclusions?

No I agree that religion can have a negative effect and I said in my earlier post that it can be exploited to control people to act in a way that illegally discriminates against others or results in illegal violence. It depends on the individual - many religious people find positive effects from their religious interpretations and practices but yes some people are more susceptible than others to negative effects from their interpretations and practices.

My point is that whether an action is acceptable or not is determined by laws in that society and regardless of a person’s religious, political, cultural or moral justifications for illegal actions and regardless of whether they are convinced of the rightness of their action, the same mechanisms exist to deal with illegal actions and to try to convince people to obey the law. This applies to militant political activists and prejudiced people who happen to be atheists. They can believe in the rightness of their cause or they can believe in an action being their patriotic duty but society will use mechanisms to constrain any illegal actions based on those beliefs. Individual moral choices can’t be established as objectively right or true - it’s often not that clear cut where there are conflicting interests but society sets a standard based on current thinking and the amount of privilege accorded to alternative beliefs and standards is up to society to decide and enforce.

As long as the action is not illegal I accept that people will hold different thoughts and opinions and beliefs from me and I am prepared to debate an opposing opinion, including the opinion that I am sinful for following Islam or the opinion that religion is an exceptionally bad problem for society.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella I see your posts and we're unlikely to find any common ground about religion, because I can't see that there's anything, any reason to spend precious time dealing with religion, religious belief or faith, however you may wish to term these things, the only time it bothers me is when I see so many spending their precious time on something that, is to me, so useless, meaningless and pointless.

It's all to do with the total lack of any good reason to bother with something that is, to me, so devoid of any evidence that would persuade me to want any involvement with it or take the bother to look into religion, for starters, but that's just my pov.

I really couldn't care less how much and how devout people are or how much of their time is spent on these beliefs whatever people do in their own time is up to them, and I can assure you I would be the first one to be shoulder to shoulder with believers if there were to be any kind of persecution going on against them 

My gripe with religions is where, they all want privileges, which go from the mildly silly, to really stupid and then on to unjust followed by what I believe is your religion, my apologies if I've got it wrong, Islam, where freedom of speech is under attack from it when anybody makes one of the many types minor comments or cartoons that can be made about it, well we all know where that can lead, and it doesn't involve a pleasant walk in the park on a sunny day. 

For the life of me I cant see why anyone needs to hold any one or the other of these religious beliefs
to go into the more philosophical side of their thoughts about life in general, I'm sure there are many famous philosophers that did and still have standing in the subject and the religious side of subject too which is fine, go for their writings just ignore the superstition based parts of their writings.

Un-evidenced tosh will always remain as Un-evidenced tosh until such times?

Regards ippy

Yes I think we’ve all got the message about how pointless you find superstition.
Others find the superstition is an essential ingredient of the philosophy. If you have a problem with privilege you can try to remove that privilege through the democratic processes available in this country. Experience tells us that change can sometimes be frustratingly slow and can be accompanied by prolonged violence.

I agree that restricting criticism of Islam by threatening people with violence is wrong. The majority of Muslims in this country manage to practise their religion without threatening violence but the vocal minority are a problem for non-Muslims as well as their for other Muslims. Muslim extremists have killed Muslims who champion freedom of speech or freedom of belief, so clearly it is possible to be a Muslim and not feel compelled to stifle freedom of speech.

[Rhiannon]

I like superstition. Whenever we see a single magpie me and the kids all bow three times (if we are in the car we nod like we’re in Wayne’s World).

Do we believe that a single magpie means bad luck? No. Do we think bowing to it undoes the bad luck? Nope. But somehow this kind of folk superstition is a part of our identity. It connects us to place and to our past and we don’t want it to die out. And that’s why it matters.

[Robbie]

Dear ekim,

Thanks for the link, and it sounds about right to me and it echo's my thought that there is a truth in all religions which is why I am fond of saying my religion ( Christianity ) is my home not my prison, I love it when Sriram and Gabriella open up about their religions, and I will go further and say this forum needs more Srirams, more Gabriellas!

Yes! Man after my own heart.

As for St Augustine, ain't he the bloke that gave us that nonsense about original sin

He had quite a thing about scrumping too.

And regarding this debate about which came first, it all seems a bit chicken and egg to me

Gonnagle.

Excellent post Gonnagle.

[floo]

I like superstition. Whenever we see a single magpie me and the kids all bow three times (if we are in the car we nod like we’re in Wayne’s World).

Do we believe that a single magpie means bad luck? No. Do we think bowing to it undoes the bad luck? Nope. But somehow this kind of folk superstition is a part of our identity. It connects us to place and to our past and we don’t want it to die out. And that’s why it matters.

I thought you were supposed to say, 'Hello Mr Magpie', three  times, have I been getting it wrong? OH DEAR!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Rhi,

I like superstition. Whenever we see a single magpie me and the kids all bow three times (if we are in the car we nod like we’re in Wayne’s World).

Do we believe that a single magpie means bad luck? No. Do we think bowing to it undoes the bad luck? Nope. But somehow this kind of folk superstition is a part of our identity. It connects us to place and to our past and we don’t want it to die out. And that’s why it matters.

Superstitions as cultural memes are rather jolly - it's quite nice sometimes to think that rubbing your lucky rabbit's foot or praying to a god will bring you luck and so on. It's just that some of us raise a, "now hang on a minute" when certain people overreach into asserting the objects of those superstitions - lucky magpies, gods, whatever - to be objectively true, and moreover insist that these assertions should be privileged over just guessing, for example by being taught as facts to children.

The pleasure you get from your ritual with magpies (Floo is right on the technicalities by the way ) or the meaning Gabriella finds in a belief in "God" are great for those concerned, but they tell us nothing about the truth or non-truth of the objects of the various beliefs.
   

[floo]

My maternal grandmother, who was a very down to earth Lancashire Lass, a bit like Ena Sharples without the hairnet, would throw a pinch of salt over her shoulder if she broken a mirror!

[Rhiannon]

Hi Rhi,

Superstitions as cultural memes are rather jolly - it's quite nice sometimes to think that rubbing your lucky rabbit's foot or praying to a god will bring you luck and so on. It's just that some of us raise a, "now hang on a minute" when certain people overreach into asserting the objects of those superstitions - lucky magpies, gods, whatever - to be objectively true, and moreover insist that these assertions should be privileged over just guessing, for example by being taught as facts to children.

The pleasure you get from your ritual with magpies (Floo is right on the technicalities by the way ) or the meaning Gabriella finds in a belief in "God" are great for those concerned, but they tell us nothing about the truth or non-truth of the objects of the various beliefs.
 

I don’t think you can equate bowing to magpies with praying, at least in our case. We don’t think it has a magical effect or undoes bad luck. It’s about tradition and identity and connects us to who we are. It’s like how some people have roast beef on Sunday. And yes, we throw coins into wells and make wishes.

[Rhiannon]

My maternal grandmother, who was a very down to earth Lancashire Lass, a bit like Ena Sharples without the hairnet, would throw a pinch of salt over her shoulder if she broken a mirror!

Yes, if you don’t do that the devil appears. Same with spilling salt.

Should we have a folk traditions thread?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

I don’t think you can equate bowing to magpies with praying, at least in our case. We don’t think it has a magical effect or undoes bad luck. It’s about tradition and identity and connects us to who we are. It’s like how some people have roast beef on Sunday. And yes, we throw coins into wells and make wishes.

You misunderstand me. I think they're precisely analogous in their construction - I didn't for a moment though mean to suggest that you attach a truth claim to the notion "lucky magpies", not least because you said that you don't. Some though do attach truth claims to their rituals - "I prayed to God for a promotion, I got the promotion, therefore God" etc - and it's that that I was referring to.

Ritual is interesting I think - famously BF Skinner had pigeons doing ever more convoluted rituals for food to arrive because, having "worked" once, they kept repeating the procedure for more food even though a single peck would have done the same thing. There's some speculation that this internalised privileging of ritual crosses species and could explain the origins of religion.         

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

Should we have a folk traditions thread?

Aren't all the religious areas here for folk traditions?

I'll get me coat...

[ippy]

Rhi,

Aren't all the religious areas here for folk traditions?

I'll get me coat...

Sounds about right to me.

Regards ippy

[Rhiannon]

Rhi,

Aren't all the religious areas here for folk traditions?

I'll get me coat...

Well for a long time what passed for Christianity in this country was folk religion. Ducking witches was a ‘Christian’ practise that has no basis in Christianity, on the same way that sticking a mummified cat to ward off the devil or growing housekeeks on the roof to ward off curses didn’t.

Interesting/boring little fact (delete according to preference)... the custom of growing houseleeks on roofs was especially prevalent in Wales and it’s probabky this kind of leek that was originally spoken of as a Welsh symbol, and not the vegetable. (Think I’ve posted this before but I get a bit old about folk traditions and stuff.)

[floo]

Yes, if you don’t do that the devil appears. Same with spilling salt.

Should we have a folk traditions thread?

Why don't you start one?

[Rhiannon]

Why don't you start one?

If I get the time. Am better placed to respond than start at the moment.