Faith vs blind faith

[Owlswing]

There are only two respectable positions for any atheist on the statement given by N De Grasse Tyson. Either denounce his suggestions as theology, intelligent design or acknowledge that this is exactly what theologians and deists have been saying for years.

What is shoddy in my view is that somehow science has struck on something new and different. It hasn't. That i'm afraid is the absolute position.

While there are people who try to turn basic theological or deist claims into bad science now superceded by a superior scientific view, that falsehood must be constantly challenged as the intellectual imperialism it patently is.

Evasion as expected and noted

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

The Quran is believed to be the word of God. Muslims believe there is a blessing in reciting it in Arabic, even if they don't understand what they are reciting because they don't understand Arabic.

Lots of Muslims can recite the Quran in Arabic but they are not comprehending it as they recite as they don't know Arabic vocab, grammar etc. They might know what some of the words and verses mean because they have learned the meaning when they are studying the meaning of verses using translations of the Quran in their native language.

I can recite the Quran in Arabic but only know limited vocab. But reciting together is a useful bonding exercise - better than watching TV as you have to use your brain to decipher the letters and blend them together. Sometimes each person takes a turn to recite a section and everyone else reads along and corrects them if they make a mistake; sometimes we recite at the same time so you get to practise without having to be in the spotlight. You tend to feel good after you have completed it.

If some Muslims think the Quran is all they need as their education they have obviously decided not to follow the reported Hadith on seeking knowledge and education.

There still seems to be a contradiction here – on the one hand you like the content, it provides meaning for you, and sharing it gives you a sense of community. So far, so book club.

On the other though you throw in the notion that some (most?) Muslims think it contains “the word of God” who presumably they also think was/is an inerrantly correct authority on the moral and other matters the book(s) address. For that latter group, if you do think that then why wouldn’t you just do as it says (or as the interpreting clerics say what it says) instruct you to act? 

No I am not. My point was that even something that was meant to be a legal instrument requires interpretation, so of course something that is not a legal document such as the Quran, in verse form, will require interpretation.

You really are. On the one hand you have legislation that’s purposive – it’s intended to be authoritative, and its basic principles are written to as to require the minimum possible amount of interpretation.

On the other you have, well, a “message” apparently that isn’t a legal document (and so presumably wasn’t mean to be purposive, though many Muslims I think would disagree with you about that) and that’s written, presumably deliberately, in substantially vague verse form.

The interpretation required for each is very different.             

How they should be treated depends on what the person making that decision thinks they gain by treating the claim as something more. For example, if someone feels they are a man even though biologically they are a woman, I could say it's all in your head, or I could humour them and agree they are a man trapped in a woman's body. If I choose to do the latter, it is because I perceive a benefit to someone from respecting their perspective.

I meant how they should be treated by other people. When someone says “I’m a man of faith” and expects his beliefs accordingly to be taken seriously, I hear “I’m a fool” and possibly worse and will politely suggest he stand in the corner along with the leprechaunists.

As for the transgender person by the way, my response is indifference. Self identify any way you like – it’s none of my business.

I can't make it meaningful to someone else, so I have no choice but for it only to be meaningful to me. Freedom of religion - to believe or not believe - is in the Quran.

Isn’t death for apostasy in the Quran too? Here’s Wiki by the way:

“As of 2014, laws in various Muslim-majority countries prescribed for the apostate (or murtadd مرتد) sentences ranging from execution to a prison term to no punishment.[30][31] Sharia courts in some countries use civil code to void the Muslim apostate's marriage and to deny child-custody rights as well as inheritance rights.[32] In the years 1985-2006, three governments executed four individuals for apostasy from Islam: "one in Sudan in 1985; two in Iran, in 1989 and 1998; and one in Saudi Arabia in 1992."[24] Twenty-three Muslim-majority countries, as of 2013, additionally covered apostasy from Islam through their criminal laws.[33] The Tunisian Constitution of 2014 stipulates protection from attacks based on accusations of apostasy[34]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

If other Muslims think differently, it's probably a reflection of the increasing importance of identity politics, no platforming stuff that is going on in the UK - something I have very little interest in. I have no need for someone else to validate my identity or beliefs and I don't have a problem with people holding different beliefs and perspectives from me.

You’re understating it – see above.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

There still seems to be a contradiction here – on the one hand you like the content, it provides meaning for you, and sharing it gives you a sense of community. So far, so book club.

On the other though you throw in the notion that some (most?) Muslims think it contains “the word of God” who presumably they also think was/is an inerrantly correct authority on the moral and other matters the book(s) address. For that latter group, if you do think that then why wouldn’t you just do as it says (or as the interpreting clerics say what it says) instruct you to act? 

You really are. On the one hand you have legislation that’s purposive – it’s intended to be authoritative, and its basic principles are written to as to require the minimum possible amount of interpretation.

On the other you have, well, a “message” apparently that isn’t a legal document (and so presumably wasn’t mean to be purposive, though many Muslims I think would disagree with you about that) and that’s written, presumably deliberately, in substantially vague verse form.

The interpretation required for each is very different.             

I meant how they should be treated by other people. When someone says “I’m a man of faith” and expects his beliefs accordingly to be taken seriously, I hear “I’m a fool” and possibly worse and will politely suggest he stand in the corner along with the leprechaunists.

As for the transgender person by the way, my response is indifference. Self identify any way you like – it’s none of my business.

Isn’t death for apostasy in the Quran too? Here’s Wiki by the way:

“As of 2014, laws in various Muslim-majority countries prescribed for the apostate (or murtadd مرتد) sentences ranging from execution to a prison term to no punishment.[30][31] Sharia courts in some countries use civil code to void the Muslim apostate's marriage and to deny child-custody rights as well as inheritance rights.[32] In the years 1985-2006, three governments executed four individuals for apostasy from Islam: "one in Sudan in 1985; two in Iran, in 1989 and 1998; and one in Saudi Arabia in 1992."[24] Twenty-three Muslim-majority countries, as of 2013, additionally covered apostasy from Islam through their criminal laws.[33] The Tunisian Constitution of 2014 stipulates protection from attacks based on accusations of apostasy[34]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

You’re understating it – see above.

BHS - I'm really not. I don't know any other way to say it than that the Quran is considered a message with moral principles to be used by Muslims to add detail to create a legal system. If you can't understand my explanation and the role interpretation plays I don't see anything to be gained by repeating myself while you repeat that you don't understand it. I have nothing else to add.

There is no death for apostasy in the Quran. There are plenty of articles on this issue if you Google it so no point in me writing reams of text. I'll link to one I got off Google that seems to explain the reason for such laws in various Muslim countries and if you're interested after you read it you can start a thread on the Muslim board based on the article and your research and I will try to respond when I can. Though I have been through all this before many times on the Muslim board. The article also discusses interpretation.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kashif-n-chaudhry/does-the-koran-endorse-ap_b_5539236.html

I get that you can't comprehend that theists might have different interpretations or not follow parts that they aren't sure about and you don't see the point of it all - you're not religious so from your experience there is nothing of value to it as you seem not to understand how theists might make use of religion.

Feel free to respond how you wish to a theist who says "it's my faith" - you don't need my permission so I'm not really sure why you're asking me how to respond. If you want to tell the theist they are a fool, go for it if that works for you. I might well have done the same sometimes when I was an atheist - can't remember it  causing me or the theist a problem.  Other people might want to respect the person's beliefs - that's their choice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

BHS - I'm really not. I don't know any other way to say it than that the Quran is considered a message with moral principles to be used by Muslims to add detail to create a legal system. If you can't understand my explanation and the role interpretation plays I don't see anything to be gained by repeating myself while you repeat that you don't understand it. I have nothing else to add.

What I don’t understand – and you don’t address – is the contradiction between moral philosophy (Socrates, Aristotle, Hume etc) that’s essentially logic- and argument-based and makes no claims to inerrancy, and “revealed” moral principles authored by a god. You seem to me to be vacillating between the two: on the one hand the Quran isn’t a “legal document” etc, on the other it’s apparently “to be used by Muslims” with no possibility of being junked as it doesn’t allow for reason-based falsification.

Of course I understand “the role interpretation plays” too, though I question whether you do. You seem to want to draw an equivalence between a religious “message” and legal texts for this purpose, though there’s clearly a difference between the maximal and minimal interpretation respectively that each requires.     

There is no death for apostasy in the Quran. There are plenty of articles on this issue if you Google it so no point in me writing reams of text. I'll link to one I got off Google that seems to explain the reason for such laws in various Muslim countries and if you're interested after you read it you can start a thread on the Muslim board based on the article and your research and I will try to respond when I can. Though I have been through all this before many times on the Muslim board. The article also discusses interpretation.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kashif-n-chaudhry/does-the-koran-endorse-ap_b_5539236.html

Yet it seems that in some countries at least Muslim “scholars” do think it’s the proper punishment for apostasy. If not for a “holy” text, where to they find the authority for that position – the Hadiths perhaps? ("There are multiple verses in Qur'an that condemn apostasy,[65] but none which prescribe any punishments for apostasy and multiple Hadiths include statements that support the death penalty for apostasy.[66] The majority of modern Ulama have come to the conclusion that despite the Qur'an suggesting that an apostate cannot be punished for apostasy,[67] that the select Hadith which do support the death for apostasy override the Qur'anic verses which suggest otherwise." – Wiki)

I get that you can't comprehend that theists might have different interpretations or not follow parts that they aren't sure about and you don't see the point of it all - you're not religious so from your experience there is nothing of value to it as you seem not to understand how theists might make use of religion.

To the contrary, of course I “get” that. That’s what happens when faith is thought to be epistemically worthwhile – you get as many opinions as there are people to have them. What I don’t get though is how they could be sure about any of it when all is interpretation, let alone act accordingly. Presumably for example the clerics who think killing apostates is correct have no doubt about their interpretation of the texts that lead them to this conclusion. How could someone be so sure if, as you suggest, their reference source isn’t a “legal text” at all but rather is just some general principles?       

Feel free to respond how you wish to a theist who says "it's my faith" - you don't need my permission so I'm not really sure why you're asking me how to respond. If you want to tell the theist they are a fool, go for it if that works for you. I might well have done the same sometimes when I was an atheist - can't remember it  causing me or the theist a problem.  Other people might want to respect the person's beliefs - that's their choice.

I just told you what I hear when someone says, “But that’s my faith” as if that was meant to make me take the seriously, and the “problem” is what happens when people who think faith is a reliable route to finding inerrant, revealed truths act accordingly. You have distanced yourself from such people – essentially the “No true Scotsman” defence – but equally you’re happy it seems to label yourself with the same title.

Incidentally, this isn’t about Islam specifically. That faith seems to be in a particularly savage phase at the moment but Christianity has been every bit as bad in the past. The defence against faith meeting power it seems to me is secularism, but that’s not to say that the rats in the sewer aren’t always with us.         

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not sure what You mean by vascillating between the 2 descriptions you have chosen. I don't think the Quran is written in the same style as a statute, which despite's its dry legal language still allows for interpretation. Therefore something less detailed than statutes will be open to interpretation. And I do believe the Quran is the word of God so would not want to discard it. If that's vascillating according to you, ok.

Regarding Hadith on apostasy - would this not be better on the Muslim board? You can read this link if you want (excerpt below):

http://apostasyandislam.blogspot.co.uk/

Readers are invited/urged to explore a vast amount of resources/links presented at this blog, where scholars authoritatively have shown that none of the hadiths about apostasy is without problem or weakness. Also, there is no hadith confirming punishment or retribution solely for apostasy. In every single case, where punishment has been meted out, riddah involved treason or rebellion. The following is an example of how the Prophet dealt with solely apostasy

A bedouin gave the Pledge of allegiance to Allah's Apostle for Islam. Then the bedouin got fever at Medina, came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge," But Allah's Apostle refused. Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused. The bedouin finally went out (of Medina) whereupon Allah's Apostle said, "Medina is like a pair of bellows (furnace): It expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good. [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, #318]I linked to covers your question about why some scholars, clerics think apostasy is punishable by death.

I don't know how the clerics are so sure - you will have to ask them. You can probably get an idea of their thinking by reading articles on the psychology of certainty about moral principles.

I think Muslims have varied thinking, but if they are certain that their interpretation of morality is right and self-identify as Muslims and I am not certain and I also self-identify as a Muslim, then inevitably I end up with the same title as them. If you believe in one God and think Prophet Mohamed was the last prophet, then you tend to self-identify as a Muslim. You don't have to - what you call yourself isn't really important - but it's a straight-forward answer when someone asks me my religion. 

Who determines the moral values in public policy in your version of secularism?

[ekim]

Gabriella,

What I don’t understand – and you don’t address – is the contradiction between moral philosophy (Socrates, Aristotle, Hume etc) that’s essentially logic- and argument-based and makes no claims to inerrancy, and “revealed” moral principles authored by a god. You seem to me to be vacillating between the two: on the one hand the Quran isn’t a “legal document” etc, on the other it’s apparently “to be used by Muslims” with no possibility of being junked as it doesn’t allow for reason-based falsification.

Of course I understand “the role interpretation plays” too, though I question whether you do. You seem to want to draw an equivalence between a religious “message” and legal texts for this purpose, though there’s clearly a difference between the maximal and minimal interpretation respectively that each requires.     
   

It's possible that the objectives are different.  The 'western' moral philosophy is perhaps more directed towards creating beneficial social habits whereas the faith scriptures are directed towards personal transformation in order to align with or submit to a God and eventually attain a paradise state.  It is easy to see how power hungry rulers could manipulate the interpretation of scripture in their favour in order to control a society and why apostasy and heresy have been treated with severity and how organised religions often split into separate into separate societies when interpretation is changed.  The 'mystics' probably have the correct approach but often have to tread carefully in order to survive.  As this thread seems to have drifted from Christianity to Islam, some quotes from Muslim mystics might illustrate their position:
Jalal-ud din Rumi ... God speaks to the ears of the heart of everyone but it is not every heart which hears Him; His voice is louder than the thunder and His light is clearer than the Sun - if only one could see and hear; in order to do that one must remove this solid wall, this barrier, this Self.
Bayazid al Bishtami  ... Forgetfulness  of Self is remembrance of God.   ... and... The contraction of hearts consists in the expansion of Self and the expansion of hearts in the contraction of Self.
Abu l’Hasayn al Nuri ... Union with God is separation from all else and separation from all else is union with Him.

[Robbie]

Great post ekim & I love Gabriella's clear explanations which I read thoroughly last night.

[ekim]

Thanks, yes I think she is doing well with explaining her personal position.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Not sure what You mean by vascillating between the 2 descriptions you have chosen. I don't think the Quran is written in the same style as a statute, which despite's its dry legal language still allows for interpretation. Therefore something less detailed than statutes will be open to interpretation. And I do believe the Quran is the word of God so would not want to discard it. If that's vascillating according to you, ok.

It’s “vacillating” and you’ve just nailed the issue. On the one hand you think legal instruments and a religious text to be analogous in that both require interpretation (albeit to different degrees), but on the other the qualitative difference between them – fallible man-made rules vs the revealed word of an inerrant god respectively – mean that they’re fundamentally different.   

Regarding Hadith on apostasy - would this not be better on the Muslim board? You can read this link if you want (excerpt below):

http://apostasyandislam.blogspot.co.uk/

Readers are invited/urged to explore a vast amount of resources/links presented at this blog, where scholars authoritatively have shown that none of the hadiths about apostasy is without problem or weakness. Also, there is no hadith confirming punishment or retribution solely for apostasy. In every single case, where punishment has been meted out, riddah involved treason or rebellion. The following is an example of how the Prophet dealt with solely apostasy

A bedouin gave the Pledge of allegiance to Allah's Apostle for Islam. Then the bedouin got fever at Medina, came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge," But Allah's Apostle refused. Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused Then he came to him (again) and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Cancel my Pledge." But the Prophet refused. The bedouin finally went out (of Medina) whereupon Allah's Apostle said, "Medina is like a pair of bellows (furnace): It expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good. [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, #318]I linked to covers your question about why some scholars, clerics think apostasy is punishable by death.

No. I’m not so much interested in the minutiae of the content as I am in the notion that an inerrant god has revealed his rules only they’re so riddled with ambiguity and uncertainty that there’s no way to know what they are.     

I don't know how the clerics are so sure - you will have to ask them. You can probably get an idea of their thinking by reading articles on the psychology of certainty about moral principles.

I do – faith. Or rather the conviction that faith is a reliable guide both to the idea that there are divine (and therefore inerrant) rules, and to what they are. The psychology of why people think that is what interests me, not whatever they happen to think those rules to be.

I think Muslims have varied thinking, but if they are certain that their interpretation of morality is right and self-identify as Muslims and I am not certain and I also self-identify as a Muslim, then inevitably I end up with the same title as them. If you believe in one God and think Prophet Mohamed was the last prophet, then you tend to self-identify as a Muslim. You don't have to - what you call yourself isn't really important - but it's a straight-forward answer when someone asks me my religion.

Indeed. You also though self-identify as “a member of a community that privileges faith over just guessing”. You presumably would say in reply, “So what?”. My view however is that, however unwittingly, that provides in some degree at least cover for those would use the same rationale to do terrible things. Your only argument against them then is that your interpretations is different, whereas mine is that the rationale itself is false.

I know incidentally that some on my side of the fence look askance at this too. How dare I suggest that their entirely harmless Mum going to church on a Sunday is a bedfellow of someone who would blow up a bus? Then I look at grown people in Northern Ireland screaming at children trying to walk to primary school and cannot but think of one thing: slippery slope.         

Who determines the moral values in public policy in your version of secularism?

Happy to answer that if you’d like me too, but it’s the wrong question. It’s not “who”, but rather “what status do they attach to them?” that matters. In secular societies no-one claims the values to be revealed words of gods – they’re worked toward bottom up rather than top down, they’re provisional, tentative, subject to change etc. And that it seems to me is key to avoiding the excesses that dogmatic certainty apparently inevitably brings.       

[bluehillside Retd.]

Ekim,

It's possible that the objectives are different.  The 'western' moral philosophy is perhaps more directed towards creating beneficial social habits whereas the faith scriptures are directed towards personal transformation in order to align with or submit to a God and eventually attain a paradise state.  It is easy to see how power hungry rulers could manipulate the interpretation of scripture in their favour in order to control a society and why apostasy and heresy have been treated with severity and how organised religions often split into separate into separate societies when interpretation is changed.  The 'mystics' probably have the correct approach but often have to tread carefully in order to survive.  As this thread seems to have drifted from Christianity to Islam, some quotes from Muslim mystics might illustrate their position:
Jalal-ud din Rumi ... God speaks to the ears of the heart of everyone but it is not every heart which hears Him; His voice is louder than the thunder and His light is clearer than the Sun - if only one could see and hear; in order to do that one must remove this solid wall, this barrier, this Self.
Bayazid al Bishtami  ... Forgetfulness  of Self is remembrance of God.   ... and... The contraction of hearts consists in the expansion of Self and the expansion of hearts in the contraction of Self.
Abu l’Hasayn al Nuri ... Union with God is separation from all else and separation from all else is union with Him.

The objectives of each seem to me to be a secondary matter. Before you get to that I’d want to address the difference between top down, revealed words of inerrant deities vs bottom up, tentatively worked toward, fallible, change apt attempts at codifying morality done by people.

“Personal transformation” and the like is all well and good, but when you throw a sort of celestial Kim Jong-un into the mix too then all sports of consequences will tend to follow.     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It's possible that the objectives are different.  The 'western' moral philosophy is perhaps more directed towards creating beneficial social habits whereas the faith scriptures are directed towards personal transformation in order to align with or submit to a God and eventually attain a paradise state.  It is easy to see how power hungry rulers could manipulate the interpretation of scripture in their favour in order to control a society and why apostasy and heresy have been treated with severity and how organised religions often split into separate into separate societies when interpretation is changed.  The 'mystics' probably have the correct approach but often have to tread carefully in order to survive.  As this thread seems to have drifted from Christianity to Islam, some quotes from Muslim mystics might illustrate their position:
Jalal-ud din Rumi ... God speaks to the ears of the heart of everyone but it is not every heart which hears Him; His voice is louder than the thunder and His light is clearer than the Sun - if only one could see and hear; in order to do that one must remove this solid wall, this barrier, this Self.
Bayazid al Bishtami  ... Forgetfulness  of Self is remembrance of God.   ... and... The contraction of hearts consists in the expansion of Self and the expansion of hearts in the contraction of Self.
Abu l’Hasayn al Nuri ... Union with God is separation from all else and separation from all else is union with Him.

Very true. Very clear explanation of the personal transformation aspect of religion and why religion therefore probably continues to attract people, because it inspires you to look outside yourself for some greater ideal or concept than existence.

Some non-religious people look for concepts such as honour or a cause or a purpose that aren't couched in religious terms.   

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside#928

Well ssaid, as usual.

[SusanDoris]

Not sure what You mean by vascillating between the 2 descriptions you have chosen. I don't think the Quran is written in the same style as a statute, which despite's its dry legal language still allows for interpretation. Therefore something less detailed than statutes will be open to interpretation. And I do believe the Quran is the word of God so would not want to discard it. If that's vascillating according to you, ok.

It doesn't matter who wrote it, the writers believed in a god for which they and no-one since has one scrap of objective evidence to present.
If they made it clear that they were interpreting words written by humans based on ideas generated by their own brains, there could be a base line of some sort, somewhere to start.

[SusanDoris]

Very true. Very clear explanation of the personal transformation aspect of religion and why religion therefore probably continues to attract people, because it inspires you to look outside yourself for some greater ideal or concept than existence.

To encourage people to look 'outside themselves' by doing it via a faith belief inhibits and detracts from the person's infinite  capacities and abilities of their own evolved brains. If they what I would certainly call waste time trying to find how to do it via a god, then they are on a path leading nowhere.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

It’s “vacillating” and you’ve just nailed the issue. On the one hand you think legal instruments and a religious text to be analogous in that both require interpretation (albeit to different degrees), but on the other the qualitative difference between them – fallible man-made rules vs the revealed word of an inerrant god respectively – mean that they’re fundamentally different.

BHS, if it makes you happy to think of it as vacillating - up to you. Not sure what difference it makes - believing the god to be inerrant but the people interpreting any communication to be fallible. But it seems to mean something to you so that's fine with me. Yes - there are probably lots of other things that are different - one is in poetic form, the other isn't; one I recite in Arabic, the other I would want to only read in a language I can understand, even if my interpretations in a language I can understand might conflict with someone else's interpretations. 

No. I’m not so much interested in the minutiae of the content as I am in the notion that an inerrant god has revealed his rules only they’re so riddled with ambiguity and uncertainty that there’s no way to know what they are.

To paraphrase Ippy in his post to me that started this discussion off, anyone can make anyone else's words mean whatever they want it to mean. Language and communication has that attribute but that's what fallible humans use to communicate with each other so we're stuck with that method of communication, flaws and all. Poetry was and is very appealing, so I am ok with the notion that an inerrant god has revealed moral rules in poetic form and will judge us on how we interpret them and our intentions and actions based on those interpretations.

I do – faith. Or rather the conviction that faith is a reliable guide both to the idea that there are divine (and therefore inerrant) rules, and to what they are. The psychology of why people think that is what interests me, not whatever they happen to think those rules to be.

As we already established faith can exist without people thinking their faith is a reliable guide. I believe there are inerrant rules and i believe I will be judged on them - though I don't know what the pass mark is set at or how the marking scheme works. I don't think my faith is a reliable guide to getting the rules right - but it doesn't stop me trying, when I have the inclination, to make the best judgement I can with the material and knowledge that I have at my disposal.

Indeed. You also though self-identify as “a member of a community that privileges faith over just guessing”. You presumably would say in reply, “So what?”. My view however is that, however unwittingly, that provides in some degree at least cover for those would use the same rationale to do terrible things. Your only argument against them then is that your interpretations is different, whereas mine is that the rationale itself is false.

Umm - not sure what the underlined bit means. I self-identify as a member of a community that believes in one god and Prophet Mohammed (there are actually 5 pillars of Islam - the other 4 are prayer, zakath, fasting and Hajj). We have some shared practices and rituals.

Your view that it provides cover for terrorist acts - I'm not seeing it. My argument is that we're all individuals and responsible for what we do as individuals. Your rationale in trying to create a link just doesn't work - because as I explained we don't use that rationale for other acts committed by individuals - we don't say anyone who self-identifies as a man or doesn't act gender neutral provides cover for men who commit bad acts because of their interpretation of masculinity. The only reason I can fathom for you to form this irrational link when it comes to religion is your bias.

I know incidentally that some on my side of the fence look askance at this too. How dare I suggest that their entirely harmless Mum going to church on a Sunday is a bedfellow of someone who would blow up a bus? Then I look at grown people in Northern Ireland screaming at children trying to walk to primary school and cannot but think of one thing: slippery slope.

Ok but the slippery slope is a fallacy in terms of an argument.         

Happy to answer that if you’d like me too, but it’s the wrong question. It’s not “who”, but rather “what status do they attach to them?” that matters. In secular societies no-one claims the values to be revealed words of gods – they’re worked toward bottom up rather than top down, they’re provisional, tentative, subject to change etc. And that it seems to me is key to avoiding the excesses that dogmatic certainty apparently inevitably brings.     

Whether they claim the values to be the revealed words of gods or not doesn't stop some of them committing terrible acts in a secular society because they are certain their values are right . If the "rats" are people who are certain and who commit terrible acts then the rats comprise of people who are religious and non-religious.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

To encourage people to look 'outside themselves' by doing it via a faith belief inhibits and detracts from the person's infinite  capacities and abilities of their own evolved brains. If they what I would certainly call waste time trying to find how to do it via a god, then they are on a path leading nowhere.

Not really - I find it very useful to not dwell on myself provides there is balance and I don't neglect myself either. I find it useful to change my perspective to one of being judged by something greater than myself - it helps put any issues I have into perspective and means I don't dwell on my own feelings too much, whereby I am unable to function because I am so caught up in my own wants and needs. And as i have explained before, the rituals and practices provide structure and discipline for the day - again this stops me from dwelling on my feelings and needs. 

It provides a welcome relief/ counter-influence to some of the cultural pressures to be a self-obsessed individual.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It doesn't matter who wrote it, the writers believed in a god for which they and no-one since has one scrap of objective evidence to present.
If they made it clear that they were interpreting words written by humans based on ideas generated by their own brains, there could be a base line of some sort, somewhere to start.

The interpretations are ideas generated by their own brains - so as you say it doesn't matter who they think wrote it - it only matters if they recognise that they have interpreted it and therefore the interpretations are man-made and open to error.

[SusanDoris]

The interpretations are ideas generated by their own brains - so as you say it doesn't matter who they think wrote it - it only matters if they recognise that they have interpreted it and therefore the interpretations are man-made and open to error.

While still believing that there is some god somewhere behind it all.

Those  who go along with their religion of cchoice are providing silent support for the continued belief in some god. In my small lway I do what I can to further the cause of secularism (leading eventually to a time when only a small number still believe that any god/spirit/etc exists) by subscribing to the BHA and the NSS.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

While still believing that there is some god somewhere behind it all.

Those  who go along with their religion of cchoice are providing silent support for the continued belief in some god. In my small lway I do what I can to further the cause of secularism (leading eventually to a time when only a small number still believe that any god/spirit/etc exists) by subscribing to the BHA and the NSS.

Ok. I don't think my support for a belief in god is that silent though. I've been pretty vocal about it on this forum because my perception is that it can be a good thing, provided there is some balance to how it is used.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

BHS, if it makes you happy to think of it as vacillating - up to you.

Spelling.

Not sure what difference it makes - believing the god to be inerrant but the people interpreting any communication to be fallible. But it seems to mean something to you so that's fine with me. Yes - there are probably lots of other things that are different - one is in poetic form, the other isn't; one I recite in Arabic, the other I would want to only read in a language I can understand, even if my interpretations in a language I can understand might conflict with someone else's interpretations.

The difference is that the analogy fails, or at best isn’t relevant. You can’t just argue, “all documents are interpretation anyway” as if there’s equivalence in how they should be treated. 

To paraphrase Ippy in his post to me that started this discussion off, anyone can make anyone else's words mean whatever they want it to mean. Language and communication has that attribute but that's what fallible humans use to communicate with each other so we're stuck with that method of communication, flaws and all. Poetry was and is very appealing, so I am ok with the notion that an inerrant god has revealed moral rules in poetic form and will judge us on how we interpret them and our intentions and actions based on those interpretations.

See above. 

As we already established faith can exist without people thinking their faith is a reliable guide.

Have we? What status is there between “just guessing” and “reliable guide” that these people occupy?

I believe there are inerrant rules and i believe I will be judged on them…

Both of which are themselves faith beliefs.

… - though I don't know what the pass mark is set at or how the marking scheme works. I don't think my faith is a reliable guide to getting the rules right - but it doesn't stop me trying, when I have the inclination, to make the best judgement I can with the material and knowledge that I have at my disposal.

But you do it seems think it’s a reliable guide to there being inerrant rules on which you will be judged, regardless of what they happen to be and how that judging would be done.   

Umm - not sure what the underlined bit means. I self-identify as a member of a community that believes in one god and Prophet Mohammed (there are actually 5 pillars of Islam - the other 4 are prayer, zakath, fasting and Hajj). We have some shared practices and rituals.

Your view that it provides cover for terrorist acts - I'm not seeing it. My argument is that we're all individuals and responsible for what we do as individuals. Your rationale in trying to create a link just doesn't work - because as I explained we don't use that rationale for other acts committed by individuals - we don't say anyone who self-identifies as a man or doesn't act gender neutral provides cover for men who commit bad acts because of their interpretation of masculinity. The only reason I can fathom for you to form this irrational link when it comes to religion is your bias.

You’re not getting it still. If you think that faith is a reliable guide to something – anything at all – then the gloves of reason are off when someone else happens to arrive at different content entirely but uses the same “method” that you use.   

The gender analogy is hopeless by the way – it refers to a social construct (ie, gender) not to an objective fact (“God”, being judged etc).

Ok but the slippery slope is a fallacy in terms of an argument.

Only when it’s used as a synonym for the continuum fallacy. It’s also though consequential logic when it’s an observable phenomenon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope).

Without the brakes of reason, what else is there to stop people behaving according to their faith beliefs regardless of what they happen to be?         

Whether they claim the values to be the revealed words of gods or not doesn't stop some of them committing terrible acts in a secular society because they are certain their values are right .

Which is pretty much what I said – the problem is common across any dogmatism, not just theological dogmatism.

If the "rats" are people who are certain and who commit terrible acts then the rats comprise of people who are religious and non-religious.

Which actually is a logical fallacy – the tu quoque. How does that help you though?

[ekim]

Ekim,

The objectives of each seem to me to be a secondary matter. Before you get to that I’d want to address the difference between top down, revealed words of inerrant deities vs bottom up, tentatively worked toward, fallible, change apt attempts at codifying morality done by people.

“Personal transformation” and the like is all well and good, but when you throw a sort of celestial Kim Jong-un into the mix too then all sports of consequences will tend to follow.   

Yes, I'm sure that the objectives will appear to be secondary as discussion is most often about organised religion rather than personal transformation and this will suit the power hungry organisers.  To try and answer your second point, I would say that part of the problem is that nobody can seem to define what 'deity' means and the 'bottom up' religious organisers project appropriate qualities upon that term which might correspond to their cause.  An emergent property of this might be a celestial carrot and stick King which a terrestrial ruler can then emulate.  You can see a similar situation with the 'bottom up' method you mention.  The philosopher Karl Marx proposed that religion was the opiate of the masses and from his philosophy a terrestrial Kim Jong-un has emerged with his own brand of opium.  I suspect that in both cases it is the power hungry human ego (self) which has not "transformed" and which corrupts, whether it be religious or political.

[SusanDoris]

Ok. I don't think my support for a belief in god is that silent though. I've been pretty vocal about it on this forum because my perception is that it can be a good thing, provided there is some balance to how it is used.

Then you are one of many millions of many faiths continuing to support, and by supporting, promote  ... well, what? A god/spirit/never-identified-spirit/entity?There are  many names for the humanly imagined, supposed, alleged something, but which is 100% lacking in any substance, observation, objective evidence etc. 

Do you think that is preferable to understanding the reality, the reality of magic (as RD calls it),actual real life and death, and the reasons why and how the people of the sciences have worked to find the answers to what the universe is made of and why the chemistry and physics work as they do, and they have sent technology, based on the acquired knowledge into space, and nowhere have they come across any god, spirit, etc.? Give me truth every day of the week and I'll use my imagination to think of a million other scenarios, in the sure knowledge that it is my brain doing all the work.  Why would people not prefer those truths? By knowing and accepting them, they would be able to take all the credit, but there are many who would not be prepared to take the associated responsibility.

[Enki]

I have never been averse to the idea of a person thinking that there is something outside oneself which one feels that they can relate to in some way. If this results in rituals and practices which stengthen this resolve while leading to a responsible and beneficial effect on the individual then I feel that I have no cause to challenge that individual and their chosen attitudes at all as long as their particular ways do not exhort others to do the same  or try to impose their views on others.

For my part, I see myself as an integral part of this world and hence I feel no need to worship anything particularly or subjugate myself in any way. I simply to try to understand myself which includes being aware, taking responsibility for and attempting to minimise what I judge to be my failings and seeking to encourage and act upon what I judge to be my better points. In this I always try to listen to the views of others, as indeed they can be very valuable, but it is my own mind that has to be the final arbiter as to how I develop.

I doubt that this is very much different from what lots of people seek to do, but I can only reiterate that in my case I feel I have no need for any outside agency(i.e. a god) to help me on this path.

[wigginhall]

Interesting stuff, enki.   Being an integral part of the world sounds very Eastern, where the idea of being separate is less prominent than in the Abrahamics.    Something outside of oneself - I can see how people get there, as there is something outside the ego presumably, but then it gets reified, to use blue's word,  which becomes strange. 

[Enki]

Interesting stuff, enki.   Being an integral part of the world sounds very Eastern, where the idea of being separate is less prominent than in the Abrahamics.    Something outside of oneself - I can see how people get there, as there is something outside the ego presumably, but then it gets reified, to use blue's word,  which becomes strange.

Cheers, Wiggs. I think the way I look at the world has always been part of my nature so I tend to go along with the flow. I also think that my years of intense birding(no pun intended) has also played a part. I find it relaxing to ease into the environment while waiting for dusk to fall, for instance, and nightjars start to churr, or to wait, occasionally for several hours, only occasionally talking to birding friends in hushed voices, while waiting for a particular rare bird to show. At these times I can get completely lost in the sounds and the movements around me. I find that invigorating.

I'm probably deviating too far off the subject now.