Does It Matter Whether God Exists/

[palbert]

The New York Times, Friday, 3/23/12:

Does it matter whether God exists? Or is the way we live the critical issue.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/does-it-matter-whether-god-exists/

For consideration, not altercation.

 

[opinterph]

Good article. I think the belief or subscription associated with most religions provides a reasonably cohesive construct that, if properly integrated into a worldview, provides a positive template upon which to interact and experience life. The functional advantage offered by the construct may exceed a requirement for proof of its certainty. The extent to which such a belief constitutes embrace of mythological components – or at least components that do not lend themselves to science or logic as their proof – may be disagreeable to some people.

One concept should be fairly easy to grasp. If God exists in the minds of those around you, he effectively exists with respect to the life in which you find yourself. And yet~ if that is so, the converse may be equally so.

The more man becomes aware of the mysterious side of life, the less he is political; the less he is a Hindu, a Mohammedan, a Christian; the less is the possibility for his being a fanatic. A man in tune with the mysterious is humble, loving, caring, accepting the uniqueness of everybody. He is rejoicing in the freedom of each individual, because only with freedom can this garden of humanity be a rich place. – Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh

 

[zoltanspawn]

Yes, I like the article a lot too. (Karen Armstrong has a similar take on belief in her popular books. She discusses 'myth and ritual' in the place where Gray is talking about 'how we live.')

If you didn't follow the link to John Gray's little essay, it's certainly worth reading, too. Here's one of the bits I like:

We tend to assume that religion is a question of what we believe or don't believe. It's an assumption with a long history in western philosophy, which has been reinforced in recent years by the dull debate on atheism.

In this view belonging to a religion involves accepting a set of beliefs, which are held before the mind and assessed in terms of the evidence that exists for and against them. Religion is then not fundamentally different from science, both seem like attempts to frame true beliefs about the world. That way of thinking tends to see science and religion as rivals, and it then becomes tempting to conclude that there's no longer any need for religion.

 

[youfiad]

Politically, socially and economically? Yes, it does matter. Faith has been a way to control people and marginalize others.

In the grand scheme of things? We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[kallipolis]

Politically, socially and economically? Yes, it does matter. Faith has been a way to control people and marginalize others.

In the grand scheme of things? We'll just have to wait and see.

Authentic faith in God is never about control for free will ensures that the faithful person retains control over their life's choices to live that faith, or not.

Do not confuse political, and ideological influences with a personal faith in God.

 

[youfiad]

Authentic faith in God is never about control for free will ensures that the faithful person retains control over their life's choices to live that faith, or not.

Do not confuse political, and ideological influences with a personal faith in God.

Well the bible and other religious texts do matter to an extent in those fields. Thanksfully, they have becoming less and less used in modern times, but in some countries it still is the biggest difference in the world. In Saudi Arabia, you can be killed for being gay, not because of what people personally believe, but because it's plainly stated. Also, in the bible, a boo that I know much more profoundly, there are many things that were punishible by death. We, as a socieity, have decided that maybe those aren't the best rules to follow and that beating your children may not be that good either.

When I say what I said, I mean that if you take the bible literally from verse to verse without cherry picking what things you want to follow and which things you don't want to follow, it can lead to huge social problems as can be seen right now with the right-winged nut jobs of the republican party. Their ideas about hating gays is not personal, it is biblical. Slavery was biblical. The list can go on, and on.

 

[youfiad]

^It is my personal Faith in God that I remain a Catholic, and that there is nothing in the Church that is controlling. The Rules and Regulations are there to Guide, not to control....Big difference there.

I think I know where we aren't communicating the same idea. I think you're talking about physical control, in which case, I don't think that the christians in the USA are guilty of, so much. What they do control is the thingss that you do in your life. As a catholic, you are not allowed to have sex outside of marriage, and since men are not allowed to marry other men, you are not accepted by the church if you are a practicing gay. Same thing goes with birth control. Birth control is against the catholic faith, and arguably christianity in its entirety. The pope has made that clear.

 

[youfiad]

In case you're wondering....in order for all of this to be permanently difinitive, they have to be spoken by the Pope in EX-CATHEDRA, which has only been done but just a few times in History of the Church. Therefore the subject isn't difinitive on that level yet. The Pope himself is forgetting about #2358 in the very Catechism of the Catholic Church he himself helped create back in 1994...mainly about Compassion, and unjust discrimination, etc.

I quit the catholic church as soon as I was able to. And I stopped paying attention much earlier due to the lack of answers I got from my questions. But this goes beyond organized religion. So I can't really talk too much about the catholic rule book. But, regardless, don't you think that it means something when it's largely practiced and believed by most in your church that who you are is fundamentally wrong and condemnable to eternity in hell?

 

[kallipolis]

In case you're wondering....in order for all of this to be permanently difinitive, they have to be spoken by the Pope in EX-CATHEDRA, which has only been done but just a few times in History of the Church. Therefore the subject isn't difinitive on that level yet. The Pope himself is forgetting about #2358 in the very Catechism of the Catholic Church he himself helped create back in 1994...mainly about Compassion, and unjust discrimination, etc.

You are correct when stating that there are only two occasions over the past one and hundred and fifty years when a pontiff has spoken ex-cathedra (from the chair, or seat) of the Apostle Peter.:

Ex Cathedra, defined in 1870, has only been used twice. (Immaculate Conception in 1854 & Assumption of Mary in 1950)

 

[kallipolis]

Just to let you know...WHO I AM ISN'T WHAT WILL CONDEMN ME TO HELL.
Being willfully ignoring the Church across the board is WHAT WILL, IN FACT, CONDEMN ME TO HELL. I personally do not wish to burn the bridge at both ends, and dialogue is very much preferable to damning the Church because of her HUMAN ERRORS...NOT THE SO-CALLED ERRORS OF THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH.

Well noted, and appreciated by me for your candour.

Those who faithfully follow the guidance of The Word (The Son) live in the truth, and the truth sets us free to fulfil our purpose.

The Word lives at one with all who embrace the call of The Saviour to follow Him.

The Word/The Logos is the voice of The Father which speaks from within our life.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Psalm 119:160 The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

Ephesians 1:13-14 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

James 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

 

[kallipolis]

^Your predictable rant is duly noted.

 

[kallipolis]

Just to let you know...WHO I AM ISN'T WHAT WILL CONDEMN ME TO HELL.
Being willfully ignoring the Church across the board is WHAT WILL, IN FACT, CONDEMN ME TO HELL. I personally do not wish to burn the bridge at both ends, and dialogue is very much preferable to damning the Church because of her HUMAN ERRORS...NOT THE SO-CALLED ERRORS OF THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH.

It is important to distinguish between the institution and the church's membership when understanding that all human life is fraught with fault, and none more so that those who presume to judge others less worthy.

Finding fault in others is a common pursuit among many of us, while neglecting to better examine our own shortcomings we point our finger at others in judgement.

The actions of earlier generations are wont to remind us that despite our easy willingness to discover fault in others, we also carry a burden that of being as flawed as the next man.

Our attempts at self improvement acknowledges that each of us has good reason to transform our self that we may better respect who we really are.

Our mirror imagery declares our superficial self but cunningly masks the real man hiding behind the face we reveal to the world. Woe unto me should the world ever know the complete me warts, and all.

Our unforgiving masquerade which entertains with the theatrical flair of an actor dedicated to revealing all that he is not; for there go I, a reminder of human folly led by my ego's foul determination to deceive, in the name of vanity and self deception. For not a few of us deceive our selves before we even attempt to fool our peers.

Liberating our self from our ego's delusional devotion to fear, and ignorance is a life time's process of self discovery that reveals the inner man struggling to subdue, and banish the false imagery that masquerades as our interface with the world.

When we are true to our self we cease to find fault in others, and resolutely declare that we are as flawed as the next man; for we have discovered who we are as the man most likely to improve our self before assuming that we can improve the life of another.

Mirror, mirror on the wall who's the fairest of us all..?

 

[kallipolis]

Your words are truly similar to what my Spiritual Director told me, and it is the reason why he gave me a book called "Rediscover Catholicism, a Spiritual Guide to Living with Passion and Purpose" by: Matthew Kelly.

I am pleased that Matthew Kelly, and I share similar thoughts.

 

[youfiad]

Just to let you know...WHO I AM ISN'T WHAT WILL CONDEMN ME TO HELL.
Being willfully ignoring the Church across the board is WHAT WILL, IN FACT, CONDEMN ME TO HELL. I personally do not wish to burn the bridge at both ends, and dialogue is very much preferable to damning the Church because of her HUMAN ERRORS...NOT THE SO-CALLED ERRORS OF THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH.

I'm not sure how much the bible speaks upon the fact of being and it's consequences. I know some have gone as far as to argue that just "being" is enough to be condemned. The bible does speak on lusting being equal to that of adultery whereas that is a state of being. Where does the bible speak about ignoring it acrosss the board will condemn you to hell and not the intentional act of defying each sin?

 

[youfiad]

The pope has excomunicated rape victims as young as nine who were raped. He has condemned the use of contraception in Africa where AIDS is leading to the death of millions. He has tried to cover up the sexual abuse claims of priests molesting little boys. The list goes on, and on, and on. The catholic church is not a good church if this is who you guys idolize.

I agree with you, in the New Testament it does mention how it is absolutely necessary to believe that Jesus Christ is you Lord and Savior. But is that the only criterion? You, as a gay man, I assume you also have gay sex. maybe I am wrong, but lets just assume it. I also am going to assume, that you do this knowingly that it is a sin. How do you think that God will forgive you if you deliberatly disobey him? Please don't say that you're human, and fallibe. If I believed in God (which I don't for reasons other than my homosexuality, but I am glad, however, that my current belief doesn't condemn me for it), I won't make sure that I lived my life, regardless of temptation to fulfill his needs. I am tempted ono a daily basis to do things that I shouldn't probably do, like eating unheathy, or going on drinking, etc. But I do things against what I actually want to ddo because it's probably the right choice for better health.

 

[bankside]

Alain de Botton makes a related point about the value of religion. He suggests that atheism plagiarise the rites and community life that goes along with the mystical nonsense; the former have pragmatic value in the lives of believers.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe6HUgrRlQ[/ame]

I am intrigued by his ideas. I am convinced that religions with billions of adherents have not sustained these numbers on the strength of their theological claims. Their support comes perhaps in part from inertia or ignorance, but mostly from the add-on benefits of being a part of a community. People want somewhere to get married. People want a reason for a feast. People who discuss being decent to each other once a week form a stronger more successful community.

None of those things require divine mythology, or even benefit from it.

Anyway yes of course it matters.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I think de Botton is on the right track, too. ^ (Everything is a remix.) It will be interesting to see how post-atheism develops, if along such lines. I plainly hope it does. The old school hardcore atheists promote the idea that atheism is nothing more than a skeptical response, and that it has nothing to do with rites and community.

Could post-atheism learn to synthesize these elements into its midst?

I think it's a lofty leap for atheism to make (and a good one.) But it won't be easy.

Atheists as a tribe are challenged, to say the least, when it comes to metaphors. The family picnic will be nerdy, but no achievement. It's the problem of poesy which will test the mettle of atheism.

Another question arises. That celebration, community and morality pose no hindrance to being sampled, but there are yet other tantalizing dimensions of religion which might beckon: is there at the end of the day even a real reason for atheists to look askance at mystical experience? de Botton's answer at the end of his ted talk falls somewhat short; I think he understands only marvelling, as though its sublimation is the 'superstructure of belief.' But I think religion offers the numinous beyond our sense of awe, and see no reason for atheists to forego it.

 

[bankside]

I think de Botton is on the right track, too. ^ (Everything is a remix.) It will be interesting to see how post-atheism develops, if along such lines. I plainly hope it does. The old school hardcore atheists promote the idea that atheism is nothing more than a skeptical response, and that it has nothing to do with rites and community.

Could post-atheism learn to synthesize these elements into its midst?

I think it's a lofty leap for atheism to make (and a good one.) But it won't be easy.

Atheists as a tribe are challenged, to say the least, when it comes to metaphors. The family picnic will be nerdy, but no achievement. It's the problem of poesy which will test the mettle of atheism.

Another question arises. That celebration, community and morality pose no hindrance to being sampled, but there are yet other tantalizing dimensions of religion which might beckon: is there at the end of the day even a real reason for atheists to look askance at mystical experience? de Botton's answer at the end of his ted talk falls somewhat short; I think he understands only marvelling, as though its sublimation is the 'superstructure of belief.' But I think religion offers the numinous beyond our sense of awe, and see no reason for atheists to forego it.

I actually think de Botton's project should be considered separately from atheism rather than as a redefinition of it. And he does seem to take a few shots at "Atheism 1.0" or "the new atheists" (i.e. the Four Horsemen) which are not merited. It is the same scrofulous nonsense repeated on here about how they reduce humanity to equations and hate the world and experience no wonder and evangelise that no god can exist. In fact all of them have been careful to point out that they do not define atheism as a dogmatic certainty that any god is necessarily absent; they do enjoy wonder and the sense of surrender to things seemingly imponderable - the sense of wonder at mysteries whose depths are not even perceived. So de Botton is unfairly accepting the caricature of Atheism 1.0 developed by the theocrats and then throwing this caricature on the pyre. I don't approve of that.

And what he has to say is not really any different than what I heard over the last 15 years coming out of the "secular humanist" crowd; one must move beyond an assertion of the improbability of a god and address the needs of the community. But he does go further in pointing out the kinds of things which can rightly be nicked from religion. He's gone further than the others in recognising the value of a community, and the value of forums/occasions/ways of relating to others that can be successfully liberated from divine superstition. He is to be commended for that even if some of the details still seem a bit wonk. It isn't really new enough for me to call it the "2.0" of anything, but it is woven together better.

Bottom line though, atheism makes a fairly modest intellectual claim; there is not any evidence to believe that religious claims currently staked are true. The "science of community," its structure, its potential benefits for human beings, is of necessity a separate discipline.

Speaking of numinousness, here are the Four Horsemen on that point:
http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/fourhorsementranscript

Oh - and of all of them, (dawkins, hitchens, dennett and de botton too, it is harris who goes out of his way to discuss the value of mysticism.

 

[youfiad]

All I'm going to say about the first paragraph here...The book I am reading, which is mentioned in a thread I started, has touched on this toxic subject/retoric.

I have the use of my conscience, which no-one may violate. What I deal with in my conscience is between me and my God. I'd rather die than having my conscience violated, however ill-formed, mis-formed it may be. My Bishop agrees that even he cannot violate my conscience for any reason, for it is the very last stronghold of my Catholic Faith, it is also the fortress against the world. It is only when I hear a definitive statement made in EX-CATHEDERA by Pope Benedict XVI or his successors, will I relinguish my conscience concerning gay sex. That statement has not been made yet.

Yeah, ok. But you have to realize that catholicism is an institution. The bible, for the sake of argument, is static and it's rules aren't meant to change. God's rules haven't changed, but it is our society that has disctated certain changes within the institution itself. What makes you think that the Pope has the power to interpret what God wants? If you want to truly believe in God, you have to believe in his words through the holy scriptures -- not through a human, such as the Pope, or other members of a church that have political, economic, and social goals.

 

[Telstra]

Authentic faith in God is never about control for free will ensures that the faithful person retains control over their life's choices to live that faith, or not.

Do not confuse political, and ideological influences with a personal faith in God.

You can tell that to the religious leaders.
Its all about control (church, mosques ... etc).