# Belief Not Central to Religiosity?



## Sukerkin (May 31, 2013)

A most thought provoking article from the New York Times - a Facebook find for me 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/o...st-part-of-faith.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0

I particularly was fascinated (and approve in some ways) of the assertion that, for some at least, the act of living "as if" there is a creator deity, who cares what happens to you, is much more central that spending time pondering if there is such a being.  I have had that discourse with a few religious people over the years and it is hard to dispute that if someone is happier thinking that way then there is nothing to be gained from debating the reality of their assumptions.


----------



## Cirdan (May 31, 2013)

If living as if there is a creator deity means basically living a good life and being kind to others, and the existence of said deity is not really important, why can`t people live like that in the first place without the imaginary figurehead of a perfect superbeing to worship? Wouldn`t that mean you love the real world, warts and all, instead of a glorified paradise dimension?


----------



## granfire (May 31, 2013)

Cirdan said:


> If living as if there is a creator deity means basically living a good life and being kind to others, and the existence of said deity is not really important, why can`t people live like that in the first place without the imaginary figurehead of a perfect superbeing to worship? Wouldn`t that mean you love the real world, warts and all, instead of a glorified paradise dimension?



HA.

Because 'living as if' often includes excluding those who belong to another club. 

Or are those who really believe?


----------



## Cirdan (May 31, 2013)

granfire said:


> HA.
> 
> Because 'living as if' often includes excluding those who belong to another club.
> 
> Or are those who really believe?



Yep.. I guess getting rid of guilt is an important part of it. If you want to kill/imprison/demonize/exile/opress/deny the rights of others, claiming it is the will of the perfect superbeing is a good way to go.


----------



## billc (May 31, 2013)

> If you want to kill/imprison/demonize/exile/opress/deny the rights of others, claiming it is the will of the perfect...



...enlightened minority, who know best how to utilize the state to create the perfect world, or to create the "new" man, ...for the people they want to create it for...the proletariat, the Aryan race...atheism is a good way to go...

As these chaps did...from wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot



> When the Khmer Rouge took the town of Kratie  in 1971, Saloth and other members of the party were shocked at how fast  the liberated urban areas shook off socialism and went back to the old  ways. Various ideas were tried to re-create the town in the image of the  party, but nothing worked. In 1973, out of total frustration, Saloth  decided that the only solution was to send the entire population of the  town to the fields in the countryside. He wrote at the time "if the  result of so many sacrifices was that the capitalists remain in control,  what was the point of the revolution?". Shortly after, Sar ordered the  evacuation of the 15,000 people of Kompong Cham for the same reasons.  The Khmer Rouge then moved on in 1974 to evacuate the larger city of Oudong.





> The Khmer Rouge also classified people by religion and ethnic group.  They banned all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them  to speak their languages or to practice their customs.





> U.S. officials publicly predicted shortly after the fall of Phnom Penh  that more than one million people would be killed by the Khmer Rouge;[SUP][30][/SUP] President Gerald Ford had warned of "an unbelievable horror story."[SUP][31][/SUP]  Modern research has located 20,000 mass graves from the Khmer Rouge era  all over Cambodia. Various studies have estimated the death toll at  between 740,000 and 3,000,000, most commonly between 1.7 million and  2.2 million, with perhaps half of those deaths being due to executions,  and the rest from starvation and disease.[SUP][5][/SUP] Demographic analysis by Patrick Heuveline suggests that between 1.17 and 3.42 million Cambodians were killed.[9



It is a good thing these guys didn't believe in a perfect superbeing...And since there is no "superbeing" setting down the rules or who we will answer to for our actions, both good and bad...we all get to make our own rules without fear of any consequences for our actions...especially if we are the minority with the power...and the guns...to do our will...


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 31, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> A most thought provoking article from the New York Times - a Facebook find for me
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/o...st-part-of-faith.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0
> 
> I particularly was fascinated (and approve in some ways) of the assertion that, for some at least, *the act of living "as if" there is a creator deity, who cares what happens to you, is much more central that spending time pondering if there is such a being.*  I have had that discourse with a few religious people over the years and it is hard to dispute that if someone is happier thinking that way then there is nothing to be gained from debating the reality of their assumptions.



For what is bolded, would that be something like believing that if there is such a thing as deducing there was a big bang, that is more central than spending time pondering if the elom existed until it decided to cease to exist, producing a big bang?  

Or something like that.  :uhyeah:


----------



## arnisador (May 31, 2013)

I liked her explanation of what 'believe' meant to the translators of the Bible and what it means to evangelicals now--different than how the nonreligious interpret it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 31, 2013)

William James wrote on this topic. Believing in God is the most pragmatic thing to do. The kicker is that he did not believe. LOL


----------



## aedrasteia (May 31, 2013)

Sukerkin and others

Religion, historically, has not been about  'belief'. It is about one's practice.

Karen Armstrong (a former woman religious) is my great teacher here:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/b...ut_belief__karen_armstrong_s_the_case_for_god

Belief, as in an intellectual and cognitive acceptance of a set of propositions, is one consequence of the 'modern' age,  beginning in the late 1500s and continuing today. it is the great gift of the supremacy of curiosity, inquiry, analysis  and concern with evidence. 

Sadly, and almost invisibly, fundamentalist believers (in Christianity as we discuss here) have also accepted the primacy  of the scientific method and desperately struggle to submit beliefs (as intellectual propositions),  to the scrutiny of that process.
It is both tragic and unnecessary. But because even they (fundamentalists) can only accept the literal validity of intellectual propositions,  they are deeply threatened. And people who feel threatened at the deepest core of their identity... well,   they act in defense of that deepest core.

_*
The Ascent of Intellectual Orthodoxy
*__
For most of Western history, religion has been primarily a matter of orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. In fact, no doctrine made any sense without participation in the community of faith and in its rituals. No doubt, there were certain thoughts or beliefs that mattered and were of extreme importance; however, unlike today,  these convictions were never understood as either the core or the purpose of the religious life._
_
In fact, for most of Western history belief has meant nothing like what it means today.  Today, when someone asks me if I believe in God, for example, they are asking if I assent to the proposed verity or the factual existence of Godand usually it is in reference to a very specific understanding of that God.   Similarly, if I'm asked if I have faith in Christ, the question is whether I agree with the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth was divine, died on a cross, and was raised from the dead, or some form of that story. In both cases, questions of belief and questions of faith require answers of thought._
_
Yet, as surprising as it may seem, these understandings are relatively recent. Faith has its etymological roots in the Greek pistis, trust; commitment; loyalty; engagement. Jerome translated pistis into the Latin fides (loyalty) and credo (which was from cor do, I give my heart). The translators of the first King James Bible translated credo into the English belief, which came from the Middle English bileven (to prize; to value; to hold dear). 

Faith in God, therefore, was a trust in and loyal commitment to God.  Belief in Christ was an engaged commitment to the call and ministry of Jesus; it was a commitment to do the gospel,  to be a follower of Christ. 

In neither case were belief or faith a matter of intellectual assent. _
_
Nevertheless, by the dawn of the 18th century, as knowledge became a rational, theoretically driven venture the word belief started to be used to describe an intellectual assent to a hypotheticaland often dubiousproposition. 

Religion would not be the same.  __Until well into the modern period, Armstrong contends, Jews and Christians both insisted that it was neither possible nor desirable to read the Bible literally, that it gives us no single, orthodox message and demands constant reinterpretation.   Myths were symbolic, often therapeutic, teaching stories and were never understood literally or historically. But that all changed with the advent of modernity.

_more... what are your practices?  To what do you give your heart?  Each day?

with respect,


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 1, 2013)

There are fundamentalists that believe there is an unbroken line of fundamentalists from the time of Christ until this day.  That they did not follow the Catholic beliefs (however you wish to define them), and in fact were persecuted by the Catholics because of not wanting to be ruled by a church hierarchy which they believed did not follow the Bible.  That is not to attack anyone else's beliefs.  Just to say there are other beliefs.  But one problem is that even within those that call themselves fundamentalists, there are those who wish to take up 'modern' beliefs.

I personally don't put much stock in Armstrong.  I think he is mistaken in much of what I recall he said.  Others may agree or disagree.   Nor for that matter, do I agree with much in the Ascent of Intellectual Orthodoxy.  I think there is a twisting of words to support the writer's beliefs.  You or anyone else is of course, free to believe otherwise.


----------



## DennisBreene (Jun 1, 2013)

This is the first I've read of the arguments of Pseudo-D but his concepts have resonated with me for years.   Being unable to know God (ie. conceive of the inconceivable) leaves one's ethical responsibilities to be defined by ones upbringing and culture. Therefore my  concepts of right and wrong are essentially Judeo-Christian. As to the modern religious concept of "knowing God" as a personal entity. I guess I'll find that out when I die, if modern theology is correct. Since I have no control of the situation either way, it seems quite reasonable to just live life as a reasonable, moral person so that I am able to interact in society.  My concepts of God and the afterlife have absolutely no impact on anyone else and I don't have to feel threatened or vexed by the beliefs of others.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Jun 2, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> A most thought provoking article from the New York Times - a Facebook find for me
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/o...st-part-of-faith.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0
> 
> I particularly was fascinated (and approve in some ways) of the assertion that, for some at least, the act of living "as if" there is a creator deity, who cares what happens to you, is much more central that spending time pondering if there is such a being.  I have had that discourse with a few religious people over the years and it is hard to dispute that if someone is happier thinking that way then there is nothing to be gained from debating the reality of their assumptions.



Just a quick note, this article is a journalist's personal point of view from a section of the New York Times entitled _"The Opinion Pages."_


----------



## grumpywolfman (Jun 2, 2013)

aedrasteia said:


> And people who feel threatened at the deepest core of their identity... well,   they act in defense of that deepest core.



Hmm... and the liberal-minded have 'evolved' beyond this character flaw? There are enough responses just on this website alone to suggest different data results. I demand a recount! 


* My PM box is open for anyone who wants to talk science.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Jun 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Just a quick note, this article is a journalist's personal point of view from a section of the New York Times entitled _"The Opinion Pages."_



I correct myself, she is professor of anthropology at Stanford who is a guest columnist for the New York Times. She focuses on an "intellectual's perspective" of why people choose to believe in the supernatural. I wonder what her opinion is about the happenings at Bohemian Grove?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 2, 2013)

Did you read the article? I thought she was pretty even-handed.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Jun 2, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Did you read the article? I thought she was pretty even-handed.



Yes I did, and I appreciate her article on "Living With Voices." 

But God is very real to me. How can I deny Him after all that He has done for me? How can I not want to defend his existence, when someone claims that He is simply a myth of the mind, a convenience for the conscious, or a means of social acceptance; looking down upon my Lord from a turned-up nose of subtle pomposity, clothed under a guise of "the educated" ?


----------



## arnisador (Jun 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Yes I did, and I appreciate her article on "Living With Voices."
> 
> But God is very real to me. How can I deny Him after all that He has done for me? How can I not want to defend his existence, when someone claims that He is simply a myth of the mind, a convenience for the conscious, or a means of social acceptance; looking down upon my Lord from a turned-up nose of subtle pomposity, clothed under a guise of "the educated" ?



How should a Hindu react to your (false, in his eyes) belief in the Christian god?


----------



## grumpywolfman (Jun 2, 2013)

arnisador said:


> How should a Hindu react to your (false, in his eyes) belief in the Christian god?



Instead of engaging me in private discussion, I suppose he might take the coward's way and give me a rep. deduction for offending his religious views Arni  :wink2:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 2, 2013)

arnisador said:


> How should a Hindu react to your (false, in his eyes) belief in the Christian god?


 Actually, being a pantheistic religion, Hindus generally have very little reaction to Christianity. Many so-called "Christians," on the other hand, do have a negative reaction to Hinduism....or any other "ism." 





> Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!" -Mark 9:24


----------



## grumpywolfman (Jun 2, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Actually, being a pantheistic religion, Hindus generally have very little reaction to Christianity. Many so-called "Christians," on the other hand, do have a negative reaction to Hinduism....or any other "ism."



...especially the religion of evolutionism  :asian:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> ...especially the religion of evolutionism  :asian:



No, this is just faulty thinking, trying to reconcile _belief_ with scientific fact. For the record, science can neither prove nor disprove God, and religion shouldn't even attempt to reconcile itself with science-though this is a little more possible on an individual basis. As for evolution, it's not a religion, and it's not "just a theory." *It's practically the law*. _The law of evolution_, not unlike "the law of gravity." Get it?


----------



## grumpywolfman (Jun 2, 2013)

elder999 said:


> No, this is just faulty thinking, trying to reconcile _belief_ with scientific fact. For the record, science can neither prove nor disprove God, and religion shouldn't even attempt to reconcile itself with science-though this is a little more possible on an individual basis. As for evolution, it's not a religion, and it's not "just a theory." *It's practically the law*. _The law of evolution_, not unlike "the law of gravity." Get it?



_Sadly, and almost invisibly, evolutionist believers (in unfounded beliefs in the 'name of science' as we discuss here) have also accepted the primacy of the scientific method and desperately struggle to submit beliefs (as intellectual propositions), to the scrutiny of that process.
It is both tragic and unnecessary. But because even they (evolutionists) can only accept the literal validity of intellectual propositions, they are deeply threatened. And people who feel threatened at the deepest core of their identity... well, they act in defense of that deepest core._

Offended? Ironic, perhaps we came form the same clan?


ugg


----------



## elder999 (Jun 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> _Sadly, and almost invisibly, evolutionist believers (in unfounded beliefs in the 'name of science' as we discuss here) have also accepted the primacy of the scientific method and desperately struggle to submit beliefs (as intellectual propositions), to the scrutiny of that process.
> It is both tragic and unnecessary. But because even they (evolutionists) can only accept the literal validity of intellectual propositions, they are deeply threatened. And people who feel threatened at the deepest core of their identity... well, they act in defense of that deepest core._
> 
> Offended? Ironic, perhaps we came form the same clan?
> ...



Not offended. _Amused_, perhaps-given my well known religiosity-you'd be stunned at the non-intellectual propositions I accept the literal validity of: a kind and beneficent Creator, who knows and loves us all. The inherent goodness of man. Evil as a force of nature.

 In any case, the scientific proof of evolution abounds-both "micro" and "*macro*", which are really, after all, entirely the *same damn thing, and have no place in this particular discussion about religion.*


----------



## grumpywolfman (Jun 2, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Not offended. _Amused_, perhaps-given my well known religiosity-you'd be stunned at the non-intellectual propositions I accept the literal validity of: a kind and beneficent Creator, who knows and loves us all. The inherent goodness of man. Evil as a force of nature.
> 
> In any case, the scientific proof of evolution abounds-both "micro" and "*macro*", which are really, after all, entirely the *same damn thing, and have no place in this particular discussion about religion.*



Well... I'm glad I made you smile, perhaps you're just more evolved than I am :idunno: because I was starting to look around the cave for my club.

Would it be ok with you, if we move this discussion into private? I would like to be able to go into an in depth discussion/exchange of this topic without the gang mentality that comes along when any one group's views are publicly questioned. It would allow us the comfort of addressing specific subjects one at a time without interference, and the luxury of replying back only when the time is convenient to do so.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Would it be ok with you, if we move this discussion into private? I would like to be able to go into an in depth discussion/exchange of this topic without the gang mentality that comes along when an one group's views are publicly questioned. It would allow us the comfort of addressing specific subjects one at a time without interference, and at the luxury of replying back only when the time is convenient to do so.



No, it would not be ok with me. Frankly, as much as I enjoy such discussions, I see no reason to enter into one via PM with you-my online time is a lot more limited these days, and precious to me.

I have heard and refuted all the same lame arguments before-it is, frankly, fruitless, especially since your "belief" is, as far as I'm concerned, your business. The entire argument stems from those on both sides of an imaginary divide-that between "science" and "religion"-confusing *fact* with _truth_, and conflating things like _theory, belief,_ and _ideas_.


----------



## DennisBreene (Jun 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> _Sadly, and almost invisibly, evolutionist believers (in unfounded beliefs in the 'name of science' as we discuss here) have also accepted the primacy of the scientific method and desperately struggle to submit beliefs (as intellectual propositions), to the scrutiny of that process.
> It is both tragic and unnecessary. But because even they (evolutionists) can only accept the literal validity of intellectual propositions, they are deeply threatened. And people who feel threatened at the deepest core of their identity... well, they act in defense of that deepest core._
> 
> Offended? Ironic, perhaps we came form the same clan?
> ...



Actually scientific method does not require that you accept it. It is premised on being tested. Scientific method works because when a theory is correct, it works, over and over again.  When the premise/hypothesis does not work or when a theory does not work in some circumstance, it demands explanation and revision. Or, in the case of a hypothesis, it can simply be abandoned. Few human belief systems are quite so accommodating in my experience.  Most demand extreme contortions of logic (illogic) to have the observations fit the belief rather than revising the belief to fit the observation.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> ...especially the religion of evolutionism



I don't see how you can make a case that belief in evolution is religion-like. Is belief in a particular theory of gravitation a religion? Of heat conduction? Heliocentricity?


----------



## DennisBreene (Jun 2, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I don't see how you can make a case that belief in evolution is religion-like. Is belief in a particular theory of gravitation a religion? Of heat conduction? Heliocentricity?



As per the central theme of this thread. Religious belief (or behavior in the absence of belief) can exist in isolation from systems of scientific thought and the scientific method.  There is no requirement that one's religious tenets hold to any external guidelines. All that is required is that one accepts them.  I suppose if one can accept any manner of religious beliefs that may stand in conflict with scientific evidence (pick any religious belief system) and function with a foot in both realms; then one has achieved a certain yin/yang type of enlightenment.  You don't need to believe in science for gravity to work. You don't need to believe in God to behave in a divine manner.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Jun 2, 2013)

Would somebody please provide me an example of macro-evolution?


----------



## grumpywolfman (Jun 2, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> Scientific method works because when a theory is correct, it works, over and over again.



This is not true of Carbon-14 dating, or of the absolutes implied by the assumptions made by uniformitarianism, and certainly not identifiable in the area of the concept of one species morphing into another (outside of the realm of science fiction).


----------



## aedrasteia (Jun 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Hmm... and the liberal-minded have 'evolved' beyond this character flaw? There are enough responses just on this website alone to suggest different data results.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Absolutely not -   that is a human response; all humans. All of us.  And it isn't a 'character flaw' for anyone.
> ...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Would somebody please provide me an example of macro-evolution?



Here we go again. 

Do you want plants, insects, fish or lizards? All of these have actually occurred or _been induced_ in modern times. However:

The modern horse, is the macroevolutionary product of the palaeothere, or  hyracotherium. Modern birds are macro-evolutionary descendants of those feathered dinosaurs. The fossil record is full of transitional fossils that demonstrate macroevolution, including that of primates, from primitive to modern man. 


Biology isn't even my field-of course, I recognize that none of these examples are acceptable to you, but that's because the anti-evolution camp has redefined "macro-evolution" to suit their purposes. The simple fact is that micro and macro evolution are the same processes taking place over differing scales of time. Period.  
.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> This is not true of Carbon-14 dating, or of the absolutes implied by the assumptions made by uniformitarianism, and certainly not identifiable in the area of the concept of one species morphing into another (outside of the realm of science fiction).



Actually, (and this is my field) it's absolutely true of Carbon dating. Carbon dating has to be calibrated-it's impacted by environmental factors-the more we have come to understand those factors, the more accurate it has become.

And what of the New Mexico whiptail lizard?


----------



## grumpywolfman (Jun 2, 2013)

aedrasteia said:


> Sukerkin and others
> 
> Religion, historically, has not been about  'belief'. It is about one's practice.
> 
> ...



For those who did not know, I modified the original statement made by *aedrasteia*, and had forgotten to provide a reference to her name. The purpose was to illustrate to elder999 how a condescending statement like this may feel if another person's religion were injected in place of Christianity (in this case evolutionism). She privately requested credit for a reference to her intellectual property; therefore, I wanted to make it clear where the following modifications to her statement came from:

*"Sadly, and almost invisibly, evolutionist believers (in unfounded beliefs in the 'name of science' as we discuss here) have also accepted the primacy of the scientific method and desperately struggle to submit beliefs (as intellectual propositions), to the scrutiny of that process.
It is both tragic and unnecessary. But because even they (evolutionists) can only accept the literal validity of intellectual propositions, they are deeply threatened. And people who feel threatened at the deepest core of their identity... well, they act in defense of that deepest core."*

My sincere apologies for forgetting to include a reference to the original source provided by this poster.


----------



## grumpywolfman (Jun 2, 2013)

elder999 said:


> Actually, (and this is my field) it's absolutely true of Carbon dating. Carbon dating has to be calibrated-it's impacted by environmental factors-the more we have come to understand those factors, the more accurate it has become.
> 
> And what of the New Mexico whiptail lizard?




Cool we're talking ... I'll have to get back to you though. Is it ok to PM you in a couple of days about this (I'm going to be off for a while)?

Thanks


----------



## arnisador (Jun 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Would somebody please provide me an example of macro-evolution?



Humans from fish.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> This is not true of Carbon-14 dating, or of the absolutes implied by the assumptions made by uniformitarianism, and certainly not identifiable in the area of the concept of one species morphing into another (outside of the realm of science fiction).



The whale evolutionary tree is impressive--the fossil line is surprisingly well-known. Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_whales


----------



## DennisBreene (Jun 2, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> This is not true of Carbon-14 dating, or of the absolutes implied by the assumptions made by uniformitarianism, and certainly not identifiable in the area of the concept of one species morphing into another (outside of the realm of science fiction).



I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree about this area of discourse my friend.  I can accept the science and I can accept that your beliefs are along a different path.  At the end of the day, we still manage to inhabit the same planet and lead successful lives. I think that speaks well for the adaptability of man. Our beliefs only define a fraction of the totality of who we are.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 3, 2013)

Folks -- a reminder that, while there are times to take a discussion to PMs or email (it's involving personal information or business, for example), it's generally discouraged and is a violation of the rules here to seek outside contact about general discussions.  Nobody's required to reply to a post in a given time frame; you can take seconds or months... Heck, we even see some posts resurrected from years ago on a regular basis.  Nobody's required to respond to a given post at all...

Religion is a hot & touchy topic.  Faith even more so.  Let's play nice with each other and keep the discussions friendly and courteous, OK?


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 3, 2013)

grumpywolfman said:


> Instead of engaging me in private discussion, I suppose he might take the coward's way and give me a rep. deduction for offending his religious views Arni  :wink2:



If you feel that someone has abused the reputation system, then please contact the Martialtalk.com forum staff, either one of the moderators, or admins.  Complaining about rep here is not the proper protocol.  

-Ronald Shin
-MT Assistant Administrator


----------

