What 9/11 Taught Me...

[markdohle]

Let us raise a glass, incidentally, to the person who invented memes. It so saves people having to explain in their own words their views on a subject, and indeed saves them from having to go to the trouble of thinking at all, just select a ready made Meme. It really is a wonderful innovation.

Not sure anyone really takes memes seriously anymore....Dawkins does not.

Peace

Mark

[Space Commander Travis]

Science may have flown us to the Moon, but it also gave Bombs that could cause greater destruction than anything man had ever created before, not to mention Zyklon B, and Sarin ... And what was the technology that took us to the moon developed from? The Missiles to deliver those Bombs. Science is not moral of itself, it entirely depends on what use it's put to. Much the same, perhaps, as Faith.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Colonel Rhuairidh

[markdohle]

Don't you see the problem there? The 9/11 hijackers had 100% confidence in the afterlife.

Studies have show that terrorist, even if they use religion as an excuse for their actions, are really motivated by deeper issues. Revenge, powerlessness etc. Here is a site on this subject:

http://www.huffingto...m_n_944143.html

I get tired of simplistic answeres, it is as if we can't live with the complexity of human beings, we want to reduce others to strawment and women, that way we can box each other in. I would think we are all part of the problem, yes even the "new Atheist". However, I do believe things will get worse before they get better, well they may get better.

Peace

mark

Edited September 13, 2013 by markdohle

[Space Commander Travis]

Studies have show that terrorist, even if they use religion as an excuse for their actions, are really motivated by deeper issues. Revenge, powerlessness etc. Here is a site on this subject:

http://www.huffingto...m_n_944143.html

I get tired of simplistic answeres, it is as if we can't live with the complexity of human beings, we want to reduce others to strawment and women, that way we can box each other in. I would think we are all part of the problem, yes even the "new Atheist". However, I do believe things will get worse before they get better, well they may get better.

Peace

mark

Oh yes, terrorism is nearly always about politics primarily; as far as bin L was concerned (assuming he was the one who gave the orders) it was about American involvement in middle Eastern affairs and the relations with Israel and so on, religion was just a device that he used to recruit the more fanatical/gullible followers to the cause.

[Leonardo]

And I agree, faith had led people to do terrible things. But that doesn't mean faith is bad. For every 9/11 there are dozens of soup kitchens feeding the poor and housing the homeless. For every marathon bombing there are dozens of organizations offering aid to Third World nations.

It could be argued very reasonably, that none of these 'good things' are due to faith. One doesn't require faith to be a good person, but one does require faith to believe that belief in a deity has made you a good person.

Honestly, I can't think of a single good thing the sort of faith we are discussing has directly brought about - unless we are going to consider art such as scriptures, various paintings, sculptures, etc. Those artistic creations could be said to be directly inspired by faith.

[Almagest]

Studies have show that terrorist, even if they use religion as an excuse for their actions, are really motivated by deeper issues. Revenge, powerlessness etc. Here is a site on this subject:

http://www.huffingto...m_n_944143.html

I get tired of simplistic answeres, it is as if we can't live with the complexity of human beings, we want to reduce others to strawment and women, that way we can box each other in. I would think we are all part of the problem, yes even the "new Atheist". However, I do believe things will get worse before they get better, well they may get better.

Peace

mark

I am quite aware that there is more to suicide bombing and terrorism than just faith, but their faith is often a prime motivator. I read that many suicide bombers were widows who felt that they were useless because they weren't virgins (a religious teaching entrenched in parts of the Middle East for thousands of years). But to go from depression to murdering civilians for political reasons takes a leap of faith, a dash of brainwashing or a touch of fanaticism. Maybe I'm an optimist but I think people are innately good, and are perverted by things such as dogma, greed and revenge.

[markdohle]

I am quite aware that there is more to suicide bombing and terrorism than just faith, but their faith is often a prime motivator. I read that many suicide bombers were widows who felt that they were useless because they weren't virgins (a religious teaching entrenched in parts of the Middle East for thousands of years). But to go from depression to murdering civilians for political reasons takes a leap of faith, a dash of brainwashing or a touch of fanaticism. Maybe I'm an optimist but I think people are innately good, and are perverted by things such as dogma, greed and revenge.

Here is the question I believe. Would things be better or worse without religion? I don't things would be better. Perhaps the reason most people believe in God, is because God actually exits. Our misuse of faith is due to human weakness and fear of others. Without religion we would still have acts of terror, people are willing to die for their group if things get bad enough, despair deep enough and hopelessness present. We fight and die over land, politics, hell some people risk their lives over sports, as dumb as that seems to be. If I want to give up my life for a cause, I would hope it would be one that is a worthwhile one.

Religion and politics draw people who seek power, those that are leaders are in those positlions because for the most part they seek them. Power does corrupt, talk about addiction! I believe good moral leaders are rare. I have no idea what I would be like if I got into a position of exptreme power over others.

Peace

mark

[Leonardo]

Here is the question I believe. Would things be better or worse without religion? I don't things would be better.

Fair enough, but can you also honestly state things would be worse?

Perhaps the reason most people believe in God, is because God actually exits.

Or, perhaps it is simply because a lot of people need to believe in a god, or 'protector'?

Our misuse of faith is due to human weakness and fear of others.

I would suggest faith cannot be 'misused'. Faith doesn't have a "default setting", but is only a justification for action or belief.

[markdohle]

Fair enough, but can you also honestly state things would be worse?[

Probably yes. Belief, true or not, makes one aware that life and our choices have a way of creating us either for some kind of afterlife, pleasant or not. Some call it hell and heaven. To take that away, then morality is left up to each person, and while the the majority may be moral, still, if one where to disagree and believes that he or she can do whatever they want, the only bad outcome would to be caught. There being no afterlife can have its positive side, death is the same for everyone, so what one does is just between "me and myself". Also, the government would in the long run have to replace any-kind of transcendent moral law, and we know where that goes, just as bad as religion taking over.

Or, perhaps it is simply because a lot of people need to believe in a god, or 'protector'?

I think that is simplistic my friend. God is not a protector, as can readily be seen by how life turns out no matter what one believes. God is not Santa Claus to the believer, if God is that,then life has a way of working that out. People believe in God because they do,it makes sense, atheism does not for them.

I would suggest faith cannot be 'misused'. Faith doesn't have a "default setting", but is only a justification for action or belief.

We all use what we believe to justify our actions, it does not have to be religion. when secular governments do 'evil' they are not really failing, since they are the finale authority in morals and how things need to be run. When religions fail, like my faith, Christianity, it is because it does not live up to what all Christians are called to do, or to at least strive towards. In any-case, believers are their own worst enemies I believe.......It also takes time to mature and grow, it is also easy to get stuck within an in group....I believe the new atheist are making that mistake, they are beginning to sound like a cult, saying the same things and overreacting to others who disagree.....yes, just like some believers.

Peace

mark

Edited September 13, 2013 by markdohle

[+Liquid Gardens]

Math made it possible because we live in a rational universe, governed by rational laws, which points to an underlying intelligence.

I disagree, I'm not clear on what reasoning or evidence that is available to support this. The fact that we have a comprehensible universe only points to the fact that we have a comprehensible universe. To put it another way, let's say that a universe exists and it doesn't have an underlying intelligence; do you have any reason at all to expect that such a universe would not be rational or comprehensible? If so, why not exactly? I'd say we have absolutely zero evidence or knowledge about rational vs irrational universe creation on which to base any argument like this concerning intelligence.

[+Liquid Gardens]

I would suggest people with religious faith often do have their own evidence. It's not transferable to others in the sense that empirical evidence can, But personal evidence feels just as strong to the person who has it. It doesn't necessarily make them right, but they feel they are doing right.

That may well be true, but 'personal evidence' is pretty much worthless for determining what is actually true, and I think there's plenty of evidence to support that conclusion. I'm hard pressed to think of any notion at all that can't ultimately be 'justified' by personal evidence, and you, I'm pretty sure, do not accept the entirety of what Muslims' personal evidence are leading them to believe is true is actually true. Determining what is objectively true based partially on what it feels like has an extremely poor track record historically.

But digging for gold holds the possibility of going home empty handed. A miner may start the day saying "I hope I'm right" but understands he may not be. A person with religious faith starts the day with 100% confidence in the afterlife. He or she may still be wrong, but because it is completely believed it isn't quite comparable to the gold miner.

You also may go home empty-handed concerning the after-life just like the gold digger. There's no reason that a miner cannot have the 100% confidence that you say people with religious faith have, there's no reason he can't 'completely believe' there is gold in a mountain. Actually he has a big leg up on typical religious belief as he knows that gold exists and where it is typically found, the amount of 'faith' he might need to come to his 100% confidence is lessened in comparison because of that fact.

I don't think that a person with religious faith is 100% sure anyway, there are plenty of people who do have religious faith who can admit that they may be wrong about God and their religious beliefs. I thought that less than 100% confidence is part and parcel of using the word faith/trust in the first place; no need to 'trust' what you 100% know is true.

[J. K.]

I don't think that a person with religious faith is 100% sure anyway, there are plenty of people who do have religious faith who can admit that they may be wrong about God and their religious beliefs. I thought that less than 100% confidence is part and parcel of using the word faith/trust in the first place; no need to 'trust' what you 100% know is true.

I don't know if I can phrase this properly about personal evidence. What secular people tend to forget is that for believers, the spiritual or metaphysical element is very real, and serves as evidence. You may not accept that the spiritual element exists, but you can't deny that it exists in our worldview.

As for not having 100% confidence: doubt serves a purpose in our belief. If I have a doubt about something, I am going to reconsider what I know and explore what I don't know. This exploration is a learning experience. If I learn that something is untrue, then I may doubt more. Some follow that route and abandon faith entirely. I may find that my doubt is unsubstantiated. Therefore, I deepen my faith because of renewed conviction. Either way, the doubt changes the status quo, as long we explore it.

Edited September 13, 2013 by J. K.

[+Liquid Gardens]

I don't know if I can phrase this properly about personal evidence. What secular people tend to forget is that for believers, the spiritual or metaphysical element is very real, and serves as evidence. You may not accept that the spiritual element exists, but you can't deny that it exists in our worldview.

I don't deny any of that, I'm sure it does exist in your worldview, but the question is how reliable is such evidence and I would say that the answer is 'not very'. For the ancient Norse people, their gods were very real and serves as evidence; you may not accept that Valhalla exists but you can't deny that it exists in their worldview. Does that lead you to at all believe that Odin and Thor were really gods and that Valhalla exists? If not, why doesn't that tell us something about the reliability of 'personal evidence'?

You can plug in endless religious notions in for the Norse mythology mentioned above, many of which are contradictory and likely do not and cannot exist under your particular religious belief. For the psychic believer, psychic powers exist in their worldview; for the telepath, telepathy exists; for the astral traveller, the astral body and plane exists; etc; does noting any of that lend anything to the credence of such propositions? If not, then why privilege your own 'personal evidence' as being indicative of something true and real, isn't that then special pleading/bias?

[J. K.]

What I was trying to address is the tendency of secularists to totally ignore that which they don't accept. I know that you don't believe that my metaphysical evidence exists, but you have to allow it to be brought up for discussion, because it is a part of my experience (whether or not it's real).

I once worked with a fellow who claimed to astral travel all around our community at night. I am a skeptic in the regard, but I did allow him to discuss it on his on terms. I may not believe that it's true, but I accepted his viewpoint that it exists for the sake of discussion.

For example, I don't believe that the Islamic religion and the Mormon religion reflect reality, but that doesn't preclude me learning about them in order to discuss them. It aids me in understanding their reasoning and motivation if I allow them their beliefs.

I know that secularists won't accept anything metaphysical as true unless it could be consistently measured with a scientific device, However, I don't see the harm in secularists accepting that we Christians believe it is true.

[Leonardo]

What I was trying to address is the tendency of secularists to totally ignore that which they don't accept.

*snip*

I know that secularists won't accept anything metaphysical as true unless it could be consistently measured with a scientific device, However, I don't see the harm in secularists accepting that we Christians believe it is true.

Would you accept or ignore a secularist pov that your metaphysical evidence is purely psychological?

As for the highlighted, there is a significant difference in accepting that another believes something is true, and accepting the truth of that something for oneself.

How should we distinguish between 'experience' and 'evidence'? And is your metaphysical evidence actually the former (metaphysical experience), rather than the latter?

Edited September 13, 2013 by Leonardo

[scowl]

Here is the question I believe. Would things be better or worse without religion? I don't things would be better. Perhaps the reason most people believe in God, is because God actually exits.

Of all the hundreds of people I've met in my life who claim to practice a religion, I haven't met more than a dozen who I would say truly use their religion as a guide for their behavior. The rest lie and cheat on their spouses. They sin without a second thought. They don't care. The only thing they don't do is commit crimes where there's a possibility of getting arrested. Going to hell is not a deterrent. Spending a night in jail? No way, pal!

Would things be better without religion? I ask "What religion?" As a means for guiding people's behavior, it's hardly a factor in our society any more. Fortunately there are more powerful ways to guide people's behavior like law, peer pressure, and raising your children with humanistic values.

[+Liquid Gardens]

I know that you don't believe that my metaphysical evidence exists, but you have to allow it to be brought up for discussion, because it is a part of my experience (whether or not it's real).

I don't think I've done any differently. Just as I allow others to bring up personal evidence for discussion, is there some reason that we shouldn't allow objections to the reliability of that personal evidence?

I may not believe that it's true, but I accepted his viewpoint that it exists for the sake of discussion.

That's fair, but again I don't see how I've done any differently. Part of my point requires me to accept your viewpoint: if you accept your own personal experience as some type of evidence or indication for the truth of the interpretations you've made from it, then, if this personal experience actually has some reliability, why don't you accept other people's personal experience as being indicative of the truth of the things you don't believe?

I know that secularists won't accept anything metaphysical as true unless it could be consistently measured with a scientific device, However, I don't see the harm in secularists accepting that we Christians believe it is true.

There's no reason to restrict this just to secularists, the majority of theists do not believe Christianity is true and thus don't accept your particular metaphysical evidence either. My point here has nothing to do with measuring the metaphysical scientifically, it entirely takes as a given that you Christians accept it as true; I'm asking why you then don't accept the metaphysical as true when people derive contradictory truths compared to those you have personally arrived at from it, and why that non-acceptance doesn't logically then mean that personal/metaphysical evidence is not reliable.

[+Sherapy]

That may well be true, but 'personal evidence' is pretty much worthless for determining what is actually true, and I think there's plenty of evidence to support that conclusion. I'm hard pressed to think of any notion at all that can't ultimately be 'justified' by personal evidence, and you, I'm pretty sure, do not accept the entirety of what Muslims' personal evidence are leading them to believe is true is actually true. Determining what is objectively true based partially on what it feels like has an extremely poor track record historically.

You also may go home empty-handed concerning the after-life just like the gold digger. There's no reason that a miner cannot have the 100% confidence that you say people with religious faith have, there's no reason he can't 'completely believe' there is gold in a mountain. Actually he has a big leg up on typical religious belief as he knows that gold exists and where it is typically found, the amount of 'faith' he might need to come to his 100% confidence is lessened in comparison because of that fact.

I don't think that a person with religious faith is 100% sure anyway, there are plenty of people who do have religious faith who can admit that they may be wrong about God and their religious beliefs. I thought that less than 100% confidence is part and parcel of using the word faith/trust in the first place; no need to 'trust' what you 100% know is true.

What a great point LQ, my best friend who is a Christian says what you say, too. She says there would have to be room for the gray in the area of trust and faith. She also says the context would matter too. My friend says it is a relatively low investment to say they trust in a theory or an idea that may or may not be true ( especially one that has no other evidence other then a persons own personal reasons.) She has pointed out to me it is the reasons that lend to the faith to begin with, anyways. That the trust and faith that comes from being earned via experiential reality is something entirely different. I have no reason to think Pa would disagree.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Sherapy

[Arbenol]

However, I don't see the harm in secularists accepting that we Christians believe it is true.

There is no harm. Most atheists are happy for the religious to have their views, and to respect that. (That's not to say they'll never challenge them).

Problems arise when religious views become the motivation for social or political policies. The secular view is that these issues should be free from any religious influence. Religion affects so many aspects of our lives, from laws that we have to our behaviours (9/11 being an extreme example).

Secularism seeks to remove the influence of religion, not it's presence.

[markdohle]

There is no harm. Most atheists are happy for the religious to have their views, and to respect that. (That's not to say they'll never challenge them).

Problems arise when religious views become the motivation for social or political policies. The secular view is that these issues should be free from any religious influence. Religion affects so many aspects of our lives, from laws that we have to our behaviours (9/11 being an extreme example).

Secularism seeks to remove the influence of religion, not it's presence.

Our beliefs will influence how we vote, be they secular or religious, so your point makes no sense to me. I do agree that a state where religion has power to dictate is dangerous, just as politics is. Get them both together, and there will be more trouble than a fox in a hen house.

Peace

Mark

[markdohle]

I don't think that a person with religious faith is 100% sure anyway, there are plenty of people who do have religious faith who can admit that they may be wrong about God and their religious beliefs. I thought that less than 100% confidence is part and parcel of using the word faith/trust in the first place; no need to 'trust' what you 100% know is true.

This is of course true. No one has 100% surety in their beliefs, no matter what they are, at least as far as the important questions go. My faith is something I have studied, believe and seek to live out. I do find that I have experiences that point to the reality of the transcendent world, but do not try to convince others. Especially those who are very sure of themselves.

Peace

Mark

[Arbenol]

Our beliefs will influence how we vote, be they secular or religious, so your point makes no sense to me. I do agree that a state where religion has power to dictate is dangerous, just as politics is. Get them both together, and there will be more trouble than a fox in a hen house.

Peace

Mark

But that's exactly what you get in America. That may explain why American athiests are often the most vociferous (if not always the best known). Your Tea Party makes no pretences about it's Christian values.

That is what secularists are against. Your beliefs may influence how you vote, but if religion is kept out of politics in the first place, then it does not have to be a big issue.

[White Crane Feather]

My belief in my spirituality is not faith. Not everyone basis their beliefs on faith alone.

[J. K.]

Would you accept or ignore a secularist pov that your metaphysical evidence is purely psychological?

I may not believe it to be the truth, but I can accept that assessment for the sake of discussion.

How should we distinguish between 'experience' and 'evidence'? And is your metaphysical evidence actually the former (metaphysical experience), rather than the latter?

I don’t know that we can distinguish between the two in the metaphysical sense. Spiritual phenomena is experienced in the spiritual dimension, which isn’t accessible by our five physical senses.

I don't think I've done any differently. Just as I allow others to bring up personal evidence for discussion, is there some reason that we shouldn't allow objections to the reliability of that personal evidence?

I’m sorry – I didn’t mean to imply that you specifically have spoken so; I’m just referring to several other responders. I certainly accept the objections of reliability; all I ask is that the responder accept that we Christians accept it as reliable. I can’t play checkers if I have no men on my side.

That's fair, but again I don't see how I've done any differently. Part of my point requires me to accept your viewpoint: if you accept your own personal experience as some type of evidence or indication for the truth of the interpretations you've made from it, then, if this personal experience actually has some reliability, why don't you accept other people's personal experience as being indicative of the truth of the things you don't believe?

There's no reason to restrict this just to secularists, the majority of theists do not believe Christianity is true and thus don't accept your particular metaphysical evidence either. My point here has nothing to do with measuring the metaphysical scientifically, it entirely takes as a given that you Christians accept it as true; I'm asking why you then don't accept the metaphysical as true when people derive contradictory truths compared to those you have personally arrived at from it, and why that non-acceptance doesn't logically then mean that personal/metaphysical evidence is not reliable.

In the belief system I subscribe to, there is no deity other than God. Belief in other deities falls under the category of false religions. If I accept spiritual phenomena as being real evidence, why don’t I accept evidence from other religions? That boils down to my personal choice. My belief system is the one that makes the most sense to me, and is borne out by spiritual phenomena in my life. The question is: is my belief system wrong? It could be. I could be wrong, and could be following a false religion myself. (According to one other UM poster, I am in a bona fide cult).

[+Link of Hyrule]

It could be argued very reasonably, that none of these 'good things' are due to faith. One doesn't require faith to be a good person, but one does require faith to believe that belief in a deity has made you a good person.

Honestly, I can't think of a single good thing the sort of faith we are discussing has directly brought about - unless we are going to consider art such as scriptures, various paintings, sculptures, etc. Those artistic creations could be said to be directly inspired by faith.

If faith can be the inspiration behind a terrorist bombing then why can't it be the inspiration for opening a homeless shelter? A friend of mine is a doctor, her faith inspired her to use those skills not as a surgeon in a prestigious Sydney hospital raking in millions, but instead working in the Third World, making zero money but what donations back home she receives.

A while back I cleaned out my old email address, the one I owned before becoming Christian. I checked my drafts and found a semi-complete response to a chain letter (you know, the questionnaire type letter that has a million questions from "what's your favourite food" to "describe your perfect evening"). My response was littered with swear words, sexual innuendo, descriptions of drug taking, feelings of hatred to the world at large, and generally a completely selfish and insular world view. I was genuinely shocked. I knew my life as a Christian was different to my old life but I didn't realise how different. If I had joined UM back then I probably would have been banned.

Was my faith solely responsible for this change in me? Not 100%. But I daresay without it I'd be a different person today, and not necessarily for the better. Saying my change was all me and not faith cheapens my experience, especially when one then turns around and blames faith for things like 9/11.

Best wishes,

Edited September 14, 2013 by Paranoid Android