A courteous, intelligent and informed discussion about religion

[Richard Tarleton]

I've been reading this thread with interest but still have this basic problem, which I've tried discussing with clergymen to no effect. Diana Athill started asking Rowan Williams about it on "Today" at Christmas but got nowhere with the waffling archbish.

The universe has existed for some 14 billion years, give or take, the Earth for some 4.5 billion. Life in the form of bacteria first appeared about 2 billion years ago. Land plants did not appear until about 430 million years ago; reptiles, 300 million years ago; and modern mammals, 75 million years ago. The first apes appeared about 35 million years ago, and the first apelike men, about 10 million years ago.

From around 600 million years ago to around 300 million, the most abundant creatures on Earth were trilobytes. Dinosaurs existed for around 160 million years.

Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioural modernity around 50,000 years ago - the merest twinkling of an eye. At our present rate of going we shall be lucky to make it to I million years.

In the course of this process, there have been several mass, near-total, extinctions.

Our presence here is the result of billions of years of accidents. I won’t even start on evolution.

If there is a God, does He have a purpose? If so, is man central to it? You’d assume so, given that He gave His only-begotten etc. etc. Perhaps if you believe in God it is presumptuous to ascribe purposes to Him, but it does all seem rather a bizarre experiment if it is so.

Obviously, early man, whose knowledge was limited to his immediate surroundings, set about propitiating the various forces which affected his existence. Religion was an attempt to give some sort of order to his experience. Later in human history (and to this day in many places) it became a form of social and political control.

There’s a perfectly rational explanation for the existence of religion. Believing it is another matter entirely.

There are (I think is the case) about the same number of atoms in the universe as there were after the big bang. Some of these atoms are, briefly, us. I find that a perfectly satisfactory, and satisfying, explanation.

[Ferretfancy]

Richard Tarleton,
I agree with your every word. Can I add that I have never heard any religious person give a satisfactory explanation of the belief in an all powerful all loving God who permits human suffering on a devastating scale.

[cavatina]

SA: actually, they have it down to a science with a terminology all its own: every muscle gets its own code. In other words, this ain't just guessing.

THE FACIAL ACTION CODING SYSTEM: CODES FOR ACTION UNITS

"Using FACS, human coders can manually code nearly any anatomically possible facial expression, deconstructing it into the specific Action Units (AU) and their temporal segments that produced the expression. As AUs are independent of any interpretation, they can be used for any higher order decision making process including recognition of basic emotions, or pre-programmed commands for an ambient intelligent environment. The FACS Manual is over 500 pages in length and provides the AUs, as well as Dr. Ekman’s interpretation of their meaning."

I sure hope none of you bleeps ever get ahold of my little black diary. Looks like I'm going to have to start leaving it at home now. In fact, I just took it out of my handbag and hid it. Whew, much better!

[cavatina]

Well, not really ... maybe it's just me being my usual pernickety self, but if we have already decided there is no God, doesn't that kind of render Vatican II's impact on doctrine (and any other aspect of mono or polytheism) slightly superfluous to requirements?

Not really-- in my case, it's not a matter of principles, it's a matter of application. So much of what passes for human society is illusory anyway, it really doesn't matter whether I personally believe there's a Big Grandpa On A Throne in the Sky or not. As long as society is constructed and contextualised the way it is, there's an endless number of things related to religion and theology to be interested in vis. their relevance to (and impact on) the real world. I find matters of ethics endlessly fascinating.

Or: Turtles all the way down, man. Now what do we do?

[cavatina]

If you're ever feeling down about something someone said about you in some stupid Internet argument, here are a few words of consolation from the Roman philosopher Epictetus which really help me:


"Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.

The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed.
....

Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, "You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be." And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first, and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you. "

[Don Basilio]

Richard - I appreciate your thoughtful (courteous, intelligent and informed indeed) comments, although obviously I don't agree with your conclusions. I would only post a response when I could do so in an equally considerate manner.

I've never heard a non-religious person give a remotely convincing reason why we should bother continuing to live, let alone breed, given we live between the terrifying experience of childhood (surely childhood is only happy as a result of ignorance) and the loneliness and decay of old age.

That there is joy and love and beauty in life strikes me as such a grace and wonder and cause for thanksgiving that religious terms seem the only ones adequate to resond.

This thread has been lumping all religion together, as though they all believed the same thing: that's a bit like saying "I don't belief in politics because it made George W Bush President."

When the Asian tsunami swept the shores of India, presumably a large number of those effected were devotees of God under the aspect of Shiva the Destroyer.
Presumably they didn't see any contradiction.

[doversoul1]

Don
I don’t claim this post to be either intelligent or knowledgeable but I think I simply accept that there are things, many things, that have no answers or reasons and there is no point in questioning. But this is not the same as not to question how best I can or may live. I suppose you might say that is where the teaching of a religion comes into. I don’t know… As an early post mention, Buddhism is probably not a religion in the same sense as say, Christianity, as there is no ‘bible’ that everyone can refer to. Anyway, I come from the background where the concept of religion as it is generally seen here does not exist and find it fascinating to see how a person can hold such meta-rationality (?) alongside the more ‘conventional’ rationality in his/her mind.

I hope this sounds to you as courteous as I have meant.

P.S. I have been very fortunate in my life so far to be spared from any personal tragedies, which may be why I am thinking this way.

[cavatina]

I've never heard a non-religious person give a remotely convincing reason why we should bother continuing to live, let alone breed, given we live between the terrifying experience of childhood (surely childhood is only happy as a result of ignorance) and the loneliness and decay of old age.

The short answer? Read Schopenhauer. (Isn't my short answer always "read Schopenhauer"? ha!)
The long answer...sorry, not today.

That there is joy and love and beauty in life strikes me as such a grace and wonder and cause for thanksgiving that religious terms seem the only ones adequate to respond.

If you said "spiritual" terms, I'd agree with you.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

... Buddhism is probably not a religion in the same sense as say, Christianity, as there is no ‘bible’ that everyone can refer to.

What about the Pāli Tipitaka?

[cavatina]

But I do wonder why anyone would want to intimidate anyone else in a debate. Or irritate. Or win - why does it matter who 'wins'?

I think if a person goes into a discussion thinking about "winning," he's already lost.

What is it that the debate becomes - some sort of primeval survival exercise? Does it actually take a psychologist to explain what's going on?

How about a social anthropologist? We're monkeys with better thumbs.

[amateur51]

The short answer? Read Schopenhauer. (Isn't my short answer always "read Schopenhauer"? ha!)
The long answer...sorry, not today.



If you said "spiritual" terms, I'd agree with you.

[cavatina]

why we should bother continuing to live, let alone breed

...now this whole thread has me thinking of a poem by Yeats:

A DRINKING SONG

Wine comes in at the mouth
And love comes in at the eye;
That's all we shall know for truth
Before we grow old and die.
I lift the glass to my mouth,
I look at you, and I sigh.

[eighthobstruction]

Yes Richard, simply put and correct....imo....somewhere later on religion became a source of POWER and that is where it began to go wrong....

[vinteuil]

"Using FACS, human coders can manually code nearly any anatomically possible facial expression, deconstructing it into the specific Action Units (AU) and their temporal segments that produced the expression. As AUs are independent of any interpretation, they can be used for any higher order decision making process including recognition of basic emotions, or pre-programmed commands for an ambient intelligent environment. The FACS Manual is over 500 pages in length and provides the AUs, as well as Dr. Ekman’s interpretation of their meaning."

:

and from wiki -

Ekman's work, particularly its applications to airport security via the Transportation Security Administration's 'Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques' (SPOT) program, has been criticized for not having been subjected to controlled scientific tests. A 2007 report on SPOT stated that "simply put, people (including professional lie-catchers with extensive experience of assessing veracity) would achieve similar hit rates if they flipped a coin". Ekman no longer publishes details of his recent work in peer-reviewed journals, asserting that this is a deliberate strategy to avoid aiding scientists in countries that the United States considers a potential threat. The methodology used by Ekman and O'Sullivan in their recent work on Truth wizards has also been criticized by two psychologists who concluded that "convincing evidence of lie detection wizardry has never been presented"

[eighthobstruction]

Is 'the Mystery of Being' an easy read??....ie. is it too dense for a light weight like me....