Beware of simple yet false explanations for religion
July 29th, 2007 by Erich ViethIt’s not because I am obstinate, though I can be obstinate.
Rather, I simply can’t believe things like: “A virgin had a baby” or “A man who was dead later became alive” or “This piece of bread is really a man’s flesh.” I can’t believe such things because these things are simply not true. To me, such assertions are nonsense and it befuddles me when I hear other people uttering them. It’s especially befuddling to see the way many people utter religious claims. It’s as though they believe they have knives in their backs and they damned well say such things, or else. “Or else what?” I often think. “Let go of those scary thoughts. It’s just a bad dream. Free yourselves! Wake up!”
I also try to be kind. I am sadded to see people wasting their time and energy due to fear and ignorance. I want to do my part to help those who feel compelled to utter patently untrue things, even if they only do this on Sundays.
I am not alone, of course. In our frustration, many of us non-Believers wish to come up with a quick and dirty explanation for why other people publicly proclaim oxymoronic religious claims. It is this urge to quickly dispense of this mystery of religion (the mystery that anyone takes religious claims seriously) that is addressed by Pascal Boyer in his 2003 article, “Religious thought and behavior as byproducts of brain function.” Boyer is a faculty member in the departments of anthropology and psychology at Washington University in St. Louis.
In an earlier post, I briefly mentioned Boyer as one of the prominent writers on religion who holds the position that religion is a byproduct of normal human cognition. This byproduct theory is certainly one emphasis of Boyer’s article. He also reminds us, however, that it might not be easy to determine a simple mechanism causing this byproduct. After all, human cognition, the source of this “byproduct,” is exceedingly complicated.
In his article, Boyer notes that most attempts to explain religion in terms of evolution have proved unsatisfactory “because a single characteristic identified as crucial to the origin of religion is not in fact general.” For instance, my characterization above (that people follow religions due to fear and ignorance) is one of the overly-simple explanations Boyer had in mind. Boyer suggests that any meaningful explanation for religion would to be a cognitive cocktail, requiring reference to many aspects of human cognition.
In his article, Boyer presents a chart to warn us to avoid many of the commonly heard simple (and false) explanations for “why does religion exist?” Here are the commonly heard overly-simple explanations for religion, coupled with Boyer’s refutations:
The claim: Religion answers people’s metaphysical questions.
Why it’s not true: Religious thoughts are typically activated when people deal with concrete situations (this crop, that disease, this new birth, this dead body, etc.).The claim: Religion is about a transcendent God.
Why it’s not true: It is about a variety of agents: ghouls, ghosts, spirits, ancestors, gods, etc., in direct interaction with people.The claim: Religion allays anxiety.
Why it’s not true: It generates as much anxiety as it allays: vengeful ghosts, nasty spirits and aggressive gods are as common as protective deities.The claim: Religion was created at time t in human history.
Why it’s not true: There is no reason to think that the various kinds of thoughts we call ‘religious’ all appeared in human cultures at the same time.The claim: Religion is about explaining natural phenomena.
Why it’s not true: Most religious explanations of natural phenomena actually explain little but produce salient mysteries.The claim: Religion is about explaining mental phenomena (dreams, visions).
Why it’s not true: In places where religion is not invoked to explain them, such phenomena are not seen as intrinsically mystical or supernatural.The claim: Religion is about mortality and the salvation of the soul.
Why it’s not true: The notion of salvation is particular to a few doctrines (Christianity and doctrinal religions of Asia and the Middle-East) and unheard of in most other traditions.The claim: Religion creates social cohesion Religious commitment can (under some conditions) be used as signal of coalitional affiliation.
Why it’s not true: But coalitions create social fission (secession) as often as group integration.The claim: Religious claims are irrefutable. That is why people believe them.
Why it’s not true: There are many irrefutable statements that no-one believes; what makes some of them plausible to some people is what we need to explain.The claim: Religion is irrational/superstitious (therefore not worthy of study).
Why it’s not true: Commitment to imagined agents does not really relax or suspend ordinary mechanisms of belief-formation; indeed it can provide important evidence for their functioning (and therefore should be studied attentively).
Boyer warns that most of the mental machinery inviting believe in religion “is not consciously accessible.” Our conscious beliefs represent the tip of the cognitive iceberg. Further, he cites experimental tests demonstrating that
people’s actual religious concepts often diverge from what they believe they believe. This is why theology’s, explicit dogmas, scholarly interpretations of religion cannot be taken as a reliable description of either the contents or the causes of peoples beliefs.
Rather than first-order beliefs, Boyer argues that religious beliefs, which are conscious and explicit, are “interpretations of one’s own mental states.”
As an example of how religious beliefs dovetail with normal cognitive function, Boyer raises the issue of communication with non-present nonphysical entities. When we think of a friendship, we often imagine walking are talking with a friend. Boyer reminds us, however, that “a good deal of spontaneous reflection in humans focuses on past or future social interaction and on counterfactual scenarios. This capacity to run off-line social interaction is already present in young children.” He reminds us that all of us have lingering thoughts and feelings about our acquaintances who are recently dead; all of us are capable of carrying on conversations in our head with dead people.
Indeed, our spiritual “friends” are much like our real-life friends. How startling is should be to us that spirits and gods all communicate with English-speaking believers in English. How odd it should be that the spirits so often agree with our own moral intuitions. How surprising it should be that the things that we find disgusting are also disgusting to them. Their favorite foods and hobbies are the same as ours!
What are the other cognitive systems from which religious beliefs might sprout? Boyer suggests these: “detection and representation of animacy and agency, social exchange, moral intuitions, precaution against natural hazards and understanding of misfortune.”
All of this is fodder for Boyer’s suggestion that we should look for our explanation for religion in the blossoming research on cognitive neuroscience. At bottom, Boyer warns that religion might not be a spectacular or fundamental error of reasoning, as many skeptics would like to believe. Rather, cognitive science suggests “a less dramatic but perhaps more empirically grounded picture of religion as a probable, although by no means inevitable byproduct of the normal operation of human cognition.”
July 29th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Please read the life story of ST Paul.
July 29th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Dee: I don’t recall ever reading that St. Paul scientifically studied the psychological motivations for professing beliefs in unsubstantiated tales.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I sympathize with your opinion, even though opinions are far from changing the world much like Christianity has done. If you cannot see the beauty of a miracle, or feel like miracles happen in your personal world… well then, you might be void of any imagination. Which, is amazing, because even a dog can see the beauty of existence around it. And if an abused child can imagine a better place for him/herself, just so they can feel happy… even if it’s not real, then so be it. My point being to you… TO BE A HAPPY PERSON, BE HAPPY FOR SOMEONE ELSE. You should try it.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Erich: I don’t recall anyone proving the THEORY of Evolution or the THEORY of Electronics. So what makes you any different than Dee. I hope you are not one who thinks that you are more intelligent than almost everyone. Oh, and I don’t think psychology is a proven science either, but I could be wrong.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
“I don’t think psychology is a proven science”
Psychology is both an academic and applied discipline involving the scientific study of mental processes and behavior. Psychologists study such phenomena as perception, cognition, emotion, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships. Psychology also refers to the application of such knowledge to various spheres of human activity, including issues related to daily life—e.g. family, education, and work—and the treatment of mental health problems.
As a social science, psychology attempts to understand the role human behavior plays in social dynamics (e.g., culture, economics, and politics). Although psychology differs from biology and neuroscience as a field of study, current psychological science incorporates physiological and neurological processes into its conceptions of mental functioning. Psychology includes many sub-fields of study and application concerned with such areas as human development, sports, health, industry, forensics, and spirituality.
Experimental psychological research is conducted in a laboratory under controlled conditions. This method of research relies on the application of the scientific method to understand behavior. Experiments use several types of measurements, including rate of response, reaction time, and various psychometric measurements. Experiments are designed to test specific hypotheses (deductive approach) or evaluate functional relationships (inductive approach). They are important for psychological research because they allow researchers to establish causal relationships between different aspects of behavior and the environment. Importantly, in an experiment, one or more variables of interest are controlled by the experimenter (independent variable) and another variable is measured in response to different conditions (dependent variable). (See also hypothesis testing.) Experiments are one of the primary research methodologies in many areas of psychology, particularly cognitive and biological psychology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#Developmental_psychology
July 29th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Jerry: The theory of evolution has survived all challenges for a hundred years longer than the theory that germs cause disease or that atoms contain neutrons.
In science, for a “theory” to be “proven”, it only has to be more accurate and more useful than all the alternative theories combined.
Newton’s Theory of Gravity is pretty good, but still can’t absolutely contradict the earlier idea that sin is the force holding man down (and therefore those without sin can bodily rise to heaven).
am: What has a complex and meaningful understanding of many amazing facets of human nature have to do with an inability to see beauty? Does greater understanding imply less imagination?
July 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
am: You confuse me. Did I deny the existence of beautiful things? Did I suggest that abused children should give up their dreams of ever being happy?
It seems like you’re suggesting that Christianity has brought nothing but goodness and happiness to the world. As though people haven’t also used religion to justify intolerance, ignorance, superstition, and violence. I’m not denying that Christians aren’t often kind-hearted people. What I doubt is that they wouldn’t have been kind-hearted without their religious beliefs.
Jerry: I see that you fear the thought of putting religion under the microscope of science. You aren’t alone in this fear. Do you really think that reading St. Paul would add anything to Pascal Boyer’s analysis? If reading outlandish religious claims helps us understand science, maybe we should also read Joseph Smith’s accounts that ancient Israelites traveled to Central America in pre-Columbian times? Or let’s consider that Zeus defeated Atlas and punished him by forcing Atlas to hold up the sky. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus Those things will really sharpen our science!
Am I more intelligent than “almost everyone”? Where did I make that claim? I’m tempted to think that Boyer’s work hit a raw nerve for am and Jerry. They want to be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe, without anyone daring to question to abject lack of evidence for those beliefs.
You don’t recall anyone “proving the theory of evolution?” Have you taken even a few hours to understand the basic principles of evolution? What part of the theory do you disagree with? I’d recommend that you go here and read up on evolution. Or just go to your public library and pick up a good book–there are many of them. Then feel free to come back and visit.
What makes me different than Dee? She reads St. Paul and Believes. I read thousands of people, including many that disagree with each other, and I question. Who do you trust more, gullible people who wear blinders or skeptical people who ask questions and follow the evidence where it leads?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Symbolic logic has a postulate (postulates cannot be proven or dis-proven) that states you cannot prove absolute truth. Probability theory states that zero and one do not exist in nature. 0 & 1 of course are certainties (truth).
All of science is false. It is based on continual improvement (change)
This brings us to the problem - DOGMA.
God (Infinity) gave us a mind to use and we must NOT hold on to beliefs in the face of a better reality!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Isn’t it a fact that today a woman who is a virgin can become pregnant through artificial insemination? What makes you think this was not possible by the power of a higher being we call God?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
wow, many of you sound very well versed on you opinions. but, the bottom line is whether you choose to believe in Christ or not does not negate His existence as both Savior and Lord. i am a recent convert and can attest to the power of God being beyond rational. which is why your theories and thoughts lead you to denying Him. His power is beyond human understanding. i once thought as you did. and by human standards had a pretty good argument against Christians. but to use a cliche I have seen the Light. i see many differing opinions above which seem to be well researched. but we are not really arguing whether evolution exists or if a man was born of a virgin. this is about God. if you believe in God then you believe He can do anything. if you don’t believe in God then there are many things of this world to explain. i do find it strange that many of you try to use science to disprove God when i believe science makes His existence undeniable. good luck to you all, may you find the truth you seek.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Prophecy has come true in the Bible and that is magic. If God’s Prophecies come true two thousand years later, why can’t other, seemingly magical, things in the Bible be true also?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
A couple of things. First: Psychology. It may be a science, but it is not exact. There are misdiagnosis’ (?) just as there are misconceptions about religion and God. Man did not create God. God created man. Wheather it took a week or thousands of years in “mans” time, man is not just happenstance. Second: Religion. There are faults with all religions. There are faults in science. There are faults with man in general. God on the other hand is without fault. The written word is man. It too is full of fault. We simply can not do anything perfect.
The old saying that there are no athiests in foxholes is true.
In this day and age with all of man’s accomplishments we have become so arrogant that we have re-created God. This is ultimately going to be the root of our demise.
Acknowledging that religion is riddled with questionable “facts”, even knowing the “facts” that the study of history provides us with, I feel and suggest to you my friend this simple statement to consider.
I would much rather believe in God and discover I was wrong than to NOT believe in God and find out I was wrong. Wouldn’t you?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Very interesting indeed.
Scientific method requires that hypothesis must be falsifiable. Existence of God isn’t falsifiable, ergo: it is as valid to scientific knowledge as it is poetry.
Also, scientific method doesn’t prove that something is true, never.
The argument in favor or against the existence of god will never be scientific, it will be a not falsifiable personal belief.
Scientist should study religion, its sources, its effects, etc.
For example; why has it been identified a particular area in the brain that, when stimulated, makes the subject experience strong spiritual phenomema? what is the role of that area in the brain? is religion a self defense mechanism the brain has developed against depresion or alike? etc …
For what I have say, it doesn’t matter if I believe in god or not. But something I will agree with some thoughts shared here. If science finds a strong relation between Faith in God (religion in short) and mental illnesses; I am prepared to stop believing (if I haven’t stop believing already,
)
cheers
Alejandro
July 30th, 2007 at 3:12 am
Erich: Interesting article. Thanks for sharing. I’d like to know, what do you think about Voltaire and his famous last words?
July 30th, 2007 at 3:41 am
“I see that you fear the thought of putting religion under the microscope of science.”
Why not put science under the “microscope of science”:
Science says, “Everything came from nothing.”
Religion says, “Everything came from something.”
This is the fundamental difference between atheism and theism; science and religion. Why is it that the belief in magic represented by Science is accepted as more intelligent? Methinks science requires a lot more blind faith than religion.
July 30th, 2007 at 4:30 am
You r a saddest. if u do not believe in religion, why don’t u keep them to ur self? why tell everyone. There’s a God and u dam well believe, Mary is a Virgin. U will roth in Hell u mad bastard.
July 30th, 2007 at 4:49 am
Which is harder to believe- a universe came out of nothing, or a virgin had a child? If you don’t believe in God, you have to believe in ’something from nothing’. You can hide in your doubtfulness over in the area of criticism of things that are hard to believe, but, if you can’t explain where everything came from (and you can’t), your atheism counsels against your very existence.
July 30th, 2007 at 6:28 am
Religious and political leaders have brainwashed “believers” into thinking that appreciating joy, beauty, etc. is “religious.” They fail to note that people of all faiths or no faith experience these–it is human rather than religious to do so.
It seems likely that certain behaviors, such as sharing social practices and myths, have survival value for the species. It seems to have put in a placeholder for cognition that might (or might not) come later.
Since (simplistically speaking) normal human learning involves state formation with cognitive dissonance and revised state formation to account for new data, it appears that children and entire cultures progress in similar ways with respect to attaining a deeper understanding of any entity or situation.
July 30th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Hello Erich,
Let not just talk about Virgins or coming back from the dead. What about
how he appeared in another form or how about where he told his followers that they should pick up serpents and drink all deadly things. A lot of people are confused about the bible even if they conisder themselves religious or not. However, have you read my book Jesus Is No Excuse that explains all of these question that you and others have. I think it will make you a believer in god and understand that the bible is not sacred but only a history book that man wrote. The only thing that is sacred in the bible is the ten commandments and most athiest follow them better than religious people. How many athiess are in jail compare to christians.? Check out the write-up at http://www.jesusisnoexcuse.com
July 30th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Jerry,
You don’t recall anyone proving the theory of electronics? If all that theroy of electronics was a myth, how do you possibly explain: Telephone communications, wired and wireless, radio and tv station broadcasts that you can receive, microwave link communications from satellites, as well as shuttle communications, microwave ovens, video games, IPods, mp3 players, instrumentation designed for analysis, shall I go on? The list is long, and keeps getting longer. Without scientific inquiry, asking the right questions, and application of proven answers discovered through research, not one of the above would be possible. Proof that it pays to ask questions, and be skeptical.
It doesn’t pay to peretuate ignorance, superstition, and unproveable feel good dogma. What does “feelings” have to do with fact investigations, anyhow?
In the global economy, stem cell research in the US will be left behind in our march toward being a third world country, because of how the present administration “feels” about stem cell research……..and that’s progress?
Please.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Well, you are right, religion is a thing that people invented on the other hand christianity is something that require faith and goes farther that the simple word “religion”
July 30th, 2007 at 7:58 am
As a non-believer, I still respect the right of any person to believe whatever they wish. It’s the imposition of those beliefs on others that I steadfastly oppose. I find the disdain expressed by many atheists or agnostics toward the so-called faithful to be distasteful at best and counter-intuitive to those of us in perpetual pursuit of the common ground that might allow us to share this planet a bit more peacefully. Having said that, I enjoyed reading your observations, Erich, although the myriad typos prevent me from recommending your piece to others.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:09 am
There have been many comments submitted to this post. I’ve allowed a broad sampling of them, but I’ve rejected others. My main concern with the rejected comments (and with several of the comments I allowed to illustrate the problem) is that the writers were warning me to go read the Bible or to start believing in God or that I was going to hell. Or they bluntly told me that religion is more true than science, without any attempt to explain their positions. Some of the comments told me what an evil person I am for even raising this topic.
The comments I rejected did not indicate that the writers ever read the post (much less Boyer’s article). They were merely responding to the fact that I had put “religion” and “science” in the same post.
I invite all comments that make ANY sincere attempt to respond to the posts. To allow the dozens of comments that simply tell me that God is Great, etc., add very little to the conversation.
To those of you who actually responded to the post (and SOME of you who didn’t–as an illustration), you’ll see your comments displayed above. Thank you for taking the time to join this conversation. I hope you guys don’t end up in hell for taking the post seriously!
July 30th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Erich:
Sorry to have to disabuse you of the prejudices that science has inculcated in you, but I can conceive of physical models of reality that both simplify our understanding of early cosmology, account for a great deal of observational phenomenon that current theory cannot, and includes spirituality.
In such a theory, our three-dimensional physical structure is coupled to higher dimensionality by the “spirit”. Gods are real physical phenomena, created by the power of belief, which generates structure in our united spirits. The host is metaphorically Christ’s flesh because it carries a portion of his spirit, nurtured by the power of faith and channeled through extra-dimensional structure. Virgins give birth when the effects of sex in higher dimensionality are manifested here.
That things don’t make sense to you in a three-dimensional model should be a challenge to you. You should open your mind to other possibilities, because it is a scientist’s job to explain human experience, rather than dismiss it.
This is incredibly important, because in fact there is power released through the process of loving reality that is almost incalculable. It may be sufficient to allow someone to push his spirit through time across the moment of his death, and then to travel back to his followers to give them the news that love will be victorious in the future.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Note on the origin of the universe. Several of the comments have noted that religion is superior to science because science says that the universe came from nothing whereas religion points out that the universe came from SOMETHING (allegedly, God).
It amazes me that people can make this argument straight-faced. On the one hand, it ignores that scientists themselves are troubled by the something from nothing idea, so much so that they are busy considering alternatives suggesting that the known universe is simply the known part of an much bigger, ongoing whole (e.g., string theory, the possibility of multiverses–see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang ). On the other hand, most believers overlook that their own God allegedly always existed (allegedly had no cause).
Tell me why it’s so much harder for so many people to believe that the universe always existed (no “beginning”) than their alternative: that an English-speaking God always existed.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Regarding wonder’s question on Voltaire: His last words are disputed. Some say he recanted his positions and others say that he simply said good-bye to his valet-de-chambre. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7308/deathbed.htm
If your question is whether I might someday recant my position, I hope I have many years of life on Earth before I find out!
July 30th, 2007 at 8:42 am
A wonderful new book on why religion poisons everything has recently been released..
“god is not great”
July 30th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Can a one celled amoeba see a star?
More importantly, can a one celled amoeba understand itself and, if so, how well?
Ask the same question of a mosquito, a squirrel, a badger, …, a human.
Are we not limited to understand this most important aspect of ourselves.
There are no atheists in foxholes.
Bottom line: there is no argument (yet) that completely convinces, or disproves , ‘virgin birth’ OR ‘the big bang’.
WE don’t have all the answers — about anything. And neither Religion nor Science gives any ultimate truth.
We only see as through a glass darkly, whether we are an amoeba or a human.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Cesar,
So I guess Christianity is the only non-man made religion?
Is this the same Christianity that at one time: Thought the world was flat?
Launched the Inquisition? Imprisoned Galileo for beleiving the planets revolved around the sun? Burnt witches and non belivers at the stake?
Killed innocent Indians, unless they converted to Christianity? Split entire continents into countries and fifedoms? The same Christianty that tells other world religions that their followers will burn in hell for not following Christ?
Sure sounds like an angry and vengeful diety to me. No wonder the term “a God fearing man” came into existence, and some people think that state is a positive attribute. How very sad.
I contend that religion in general has been responsible for more death and destruction, and ignorance, than all the 20th century wars combined.
It’s not about your soul, or spirituality…..it’s about control, and keeping them dumb down on the farm. Why? Because institutions die hard, and will do most anything to retain their “power” over the populace. For instance, if
Catholic priests are to be held to high esteem based on their occupation of choice, how do they square their piousness with all the corroborated/concealed kidde raping? And, will they be sent to hell for this abomination, or revered in heaven cause their God wanted them to molest
children? Those who claim to have all the answers are welcome to take a stab at the above question.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Erich, you choose to not believe. I choose to believe. My choice is based upon faith, a belief in the absence of proof. Perhaps your choice is also based upon an absence of proof. Time will tell.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Well said Eve: I like to think I am open-minded. However, I have fear of those who hold their personal beliefs above those of others, be they ones of believer vs non-believer, or science vs religeon.
I fear the intolerance you speak of, and judging the responses of many here, have good reason to be fearful. I am a scientifically educated person, non-believer, who usually holds my personal beliefs to myself. I could offer my experiences with faith seen in the health care world, or proof of evolution (think about how quickly bacteria have shared with other bacteria the genetic ability to resist antibiotics ). These experiences and sceintificlly studied human experiencec help to keep my mind open to all possibilities.
If I may use these words here; I prey (hope) that someday, we all can live in harmony.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:54 am
I dont think anyone believes that you need God to see beauty, etc… Christanity, did however, tried to establish a moral standard/baseline, (yes there have been other religions that have also). Ive read arguments here that talk about all the harm done in the name of religion and that is true. However, you think the removal of a belief in God will make our society kinder? - I simply do not believe that to be the case. Whether Christanity has been misused, (and of course it has - name anything that humans have touched that has not been). What moral standard(s), (even if it they are bare bones and misused), do you think exists if you remove that idealogy, a legal one? Wouldnt you at least agree that politics and our legal system have been misused also? Dont you think that perhaps even science has been misused at times as well - though that never seems to be stated - as if it is a god itself - and in my opinion that is kind of the trap of it all. Science vs Religion - well certainly scientific application has allow us to rise to rise to the top of the food chain and to mode our environments to a great degree, (the latter could be debated as whether having been positive of not), therefore I understand why it seems a logical extension to say science good, religion bad. However, also in my opinion it is absolute foolishness to take all of science as if it simply correct when even it’s base guidelines dictate that it can never really be fact at all, (and bottomline anyway that you slice this, take any branch of science far enough and it’s just a guess - but one that is repeated as if it is scripture) - which makes me wonder why people have a hard time seeing why other people need religion - people need to feel they have the answer. All of that for this,
I am not stating religion is correct, of course at least parts of it cannot be, but it simply blows my mind that people argue with what roughly amounts to scriptual guesses as fact when they would be screaming bloody murder if anyone of religion slant did exactly the same thing.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Let’s face it - whether you choose to believe or not believe is exactly that - a personal choice. You don’t need to explain to me why you have chosen what you have chosen, just as I don’t feel the need to explain my choices to you. If you ask, I will be happy to tell you, and I offer you the same right.
By the way - I haven’t asked. . .
July 30th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Gary Gittings
>>>
I contend that religion in general has been responsible for more death and destruction, and ignorance, than all the 20th century wars combined.
>>
It’s not about your soul, or spirituality…..it’s about control, and keeping them dumb down on the farm.
>>
The same Christianty that tells other world religions that their followers will burn in hell for not following Christ?
> This is a remarkable statement from a man many view as an iceage survivor.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I believe in the possibility of humans (notice the plural!) the world over to eventually live in a dynamic harmonious world of great human understanding and support, and, to this end, I strongly believe that in every country, sooner than later, and from kiddie schools up, there should be a conversation on religious, scientific and philosophical ideas and how they relate to human culture. However, I do not know , in practical terms, how this could be achieved. The alternative is for continuous human strife based on the so-called truthfulnes of one religion or religious creed over the others. By the way, although reared as a Christian, I acknowledge other religious notions as being on a par with Christianity, even those notions in tribal groups the world over and in Egypt , Greece and Rome of antiquity..I am now an agnostic, and was once an atheist too…………….Al
July 30th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Erich Vieth
One thing you failed to mention was that religion was about…the truth or the search for what is true. As a Catholic I believe the words of Jesus when he said “Veritas, Veritas…” (truly, truly…) This is the only religion that has its founder saying that what he said was the truth.
Religion is not so much about trying to teach someone to be a better person or live a better life. Those are part of what religion is all about but it is not the main point. It is about what is true and real in this world and the afterlife. Is it ok to kill your child in the womb? Is there heaven and hell, God, Purgatory, ect.? If you think that this world is all there is then good luck to you and you might as well live it up since there is nothing for you after this life.
BTW we have already exprimented with Godless, atheistic societies…Nazism and Communism. How many people did they whacked?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Nathan der Weise (whoever you are) shame on you for putting tthe old chestnut about atheists in foxholes in the mouth of a character in a play banned by religious authorities for its message of religious tolerance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_the_Wise
July 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Christanity is nothing more than a Myth. It is the last in a long line of myths promoting a dead-man-sun god, born of a virgin who died and was resurrected in three days. Study history people, study! Horus, Isis, Christus, Krishna, Buddha, Dionysus and Mithra all were born on Dec. 25th of virgin mothers, all began their ministries at age 30, all were crucified and were resurrected after 3 days. Christianity promotes their latest sun-god, jesus who again mirrors “God’s Sun”, which dies on December 22nd in the sky only to be “reborn” on the 25th. To put your trust in a mythological sun god who doesn’t meet any of the requirements of the Messiah is pure folly.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
You see, you are all the simple truth of the scriptures yourselves. You personify the end days and they say it would be. God is and we are all sinners and liars. He has mercy on who he has mercy; and whom he will, he destroys.
Your evolution is a fantasy explanation to the truth you know to be existent. You deny the truth because you do not like the fact you must go to God and confess your life as unworthy of redemption. So, you say it is foolish. False and repugnent. Actually you attribute this to mental instability, those who are of the faith of any religion that accepts a literal Creator/God. Yet, how can anything come together without work and a plan. Chaos does not lead to evolution. You would answer that Evolution is a systematic process of trial and error. Except, that the odds make it impossible to occur. There are three possibilities here. 1. God created. 2. Universe created itself. 3. Existent matter formed from a chaotic state to orderly. Entropy answers the matter totally as for evidence.
Evolution of itself is non-sustainable due to the state of the animal, plant, or geologic evidences suppressed by your science. Maybe the lack of is more accurate. Louis Pasteur proved amongst others your science of Evolution false and lacking merit. Too bad you don’t look up the science of truth.
Please explain why the helium in rock has not escaped as would be the case for your time template!!
July 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
If God doesn’t exist, then all this banter and bickering is wasted energy. Just believe what you want; we are products of evolution; morallity and civil discourse are made up by other humans to make themselves feel good. One man’s morallity is another man’s trash pit………Right? No God- no rules, mate. Do what you want, because it doesn’t matter. That is pure evolution.
The Bible is claimed to be the Word of the Creator. Is it? To prove that it is, you ’simply’ have to compare prophetic statements made in the older parts of it (Old Testament), and see if these events took place later in the O.T., or even in the New Testament. I have done that, and can tell you emphatically that the Bible proves itself to be true. If you don’t believe that, then nothing I say will sway you……you must prove it for yourself.
Then, and ONLY then, will you begin to understand that God works in a much higher, more powerful and different realm than we comprehend. If in fact He created mankind (He did), then it’s nothing for Him to impregnate a virgin woman. No science study will ever understand that or show that this is possible.
As far as past ‘religious’ history is concerned- man has made mistakes virtually from day-one, and will continue to do so right up to Christ’s 2nd Coming. We will NEVER get it right until then. To blame God for our hideous mistakes is quite ignorant and naive. People need to get off that arguement, and look to God, in an open, humble spirit, to strive daily for a better existence. But one point- the Crusades were not a black mark on Christianity as most are taught today. That was a period where Muslim hoards were trying to take over the Western World, and through much time, energy and spilled blood were they pushed back. That problem has resurfaced today. So far, we haven’t fully realized our peril as Europe did during that awful period we call the ‘Crusades’.
So believe what you want; but realize that the Creator does exist, and it’s up to you to prove beyond any doubt that He does (or doesn’t in your opinion), before you spout your un-belief to others.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Wow. I am amazed by the responses here. It would be better for those who know Jesus personally to respond but most would believe it a waste of time speaking to an ‘I’ve made up my mind’ group. You can’t really speak about something you know nothing about.
Same reason most marriages fail. Each person says they know the other person but they don’t spend time together, talk together, communicate with depth of understanding. Then, after it’s over say I thought I knew them.
I have a personal relationship with Jesus. Jesus is real, alive, and very much interested in me. I was created by this awesome God and He knows all about me, what I need, what I was created for, and has a great desire to bless me and lead me to a full life.
He has worked miracles in my life and transformed me from the inside from the day I gave my life to Him. From where you are you cannot prove that I don’t have a wife but those around me know the truth, I do. For you to say there is no Jesus, you are absolutly correct from your point of view, but the truth is…
Love you anyway my friend. Have an awesome life.
Blessings.
Rob
July 30th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
There Are No (A)theists in Foxholes
Quite a few soldiers have entered battle devout believers but ended up coming away without any faith at all. Consider the following:
“My great-grandfather returned from the Somme in the winter of 1916. He was an officer in a Welsh Guards regiment. He had been gassed and shot and had seen his platoon numerically wiped out and replaced more than three times since he first took command of it. He had used his side arm, a Webley revolver, so much that its barrel was pitted into uselessness. I heard a story about one of his advances across no-man’s-land in which he set out with a full company and by the time he arrived at the German wire was one of only two men left alive.
Until that time, this branch of my family had been Calvinistic Methodists. . . But when he returned from the war, my great-grandfather had seen enough to change his mind. He gathered the family together and banned religion in his house. ‘Either god is a bastard,’ he said, ‘or god isn’t there at all.”
If it isn’t true that there are no atheists in foxholes and that many theists leave their foxholes as atheists, why does the myth persist? It certainly can’t be employed as an argument against atheism — even if it were true, that would not mean that atheism is unreasonable or theism valid. To suggest otherwise would be little more than an ad hominem fallacy.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/AtheistsFoxhole.htm
In the past several years, atheists have organized letter-writing campaigns against Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, Bob Schieffer (who issued a public apology) and other news anchors for repeating the “no atheists in foxholes” line on TV. And on Veterans Day 2005, several dozen atheist veterans paraded down the National Mall bearing American flags and signs reading ATHEIST VETERAN—WE SHARED YOUR FOXHOLES! Johnson says atheists in the military face prejudice. “Before I got to be the rank I am I had to keep my head down and my mouth shut. I had commanding officers who made it clear that they wouldn’t tolerate atheism in their ranks.” Military leaders deny any discrimination. “Service in the military is open to people of all creeds and religions,” says Michael Milord, a lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard. Officially, the Department of Defense considers atheism a creed like other faiths. New recruits can choose ATHEIST, AGNOSTIC, or NO RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE for their dog-tag identifications. And an atheist symbol, which resembles an atom, is among the dozens of “approved emblems of belief” that can appear on the headstones of fallen soldiers in military cemeteries.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14322117/
July 30th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Not being a very religious person myself i have asked some of these questions before. However it was my father who answered them for me in one simple word…Faith. It is faith that allows people to believe in the “impossible” such as a vergin having a baby. Those who have faith in some greater being do not need scientific explanations.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
When I read my Bible, I find a few historic facts and a lot of symbolic language. Now symbols are used tot speak the unspeakable. I believe that there is more to it then the eye meets. Relmigion has its reason of exitence. I believe in God, but I believe in science too. The two are not incompatible, but must not interfere.
I do not want to discuss individual stories from the Bible. We have to apply science to the Bible as well and try to find out what is fact and what is symbolism. The Bible is not a science book. If you believe that, it’s like saying the film “Babe” reflects reality.
By the way, the theory of the éBig Bang” stems from a countryman of mine, a belgian priest named Georges Lemaitre, and the most fervent advocate of evolutionism was a french jesuit and mystic, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Mthys always have some relationship to past experience myth and its meaning become dissociated over time. Furthermore, myth itself changes over time making any intepretation difficualt. But historically there were alwys those people who were able to mediate between the material and immaterial world, between dream and awake state. This ability to move from one world to aother from one perspective to another gave these individuals the power to effect a transformation. These are the dreamers who act to turn the dream into reality.
In ancient times these individuals were called shamans and depicted as half-man half-animal, with the move away from the natureal to the man-made we find these people depicted as half-man half-god. The ability to imagine and dream and turn that dream into reality (act of creation) is what makes us god like. In fact ultimately one cannot tell which is creatore and which is created man or god.
Becasue these individuals were depicted as half-man half god there were thought to be born of a god father and an earthly mother. It is not a literal truth, but rather a symbolic Truth.
But in conjuction with the move from a spirityal society to a material society we now see all of these individuals as mere men and gods with feet of clay. We essentually destroy tham as gods.
The story of the dreamer is that thos who are threatened by this dream always attempt to kill the dream by killing the dreamer. But this doesn’t work becasue the dream comes back in the form of another person.
To kill a dream one must kill the spirit of the dream,
Behold cometh the Dreamer let us throw him in the pit.
Talking about Joseph with the coat of many colors. Here the coat of many colors referred to the fiery dragon, the rainbow snake, the which is a symbol for the power to effect a transformation. The old dies and the new is reborn.
So today we might argue that the spirit of our founding fathers has re-occurred in the form of Lincoln, FDR, and JFK, MLK, and in all those who fight for freedom, liberty, and justice.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Erich you are absolutely justified in being disgusted by “simple yet false explainations of religion. Religions are too diverse and the reasons why they exist are too complicated as you will have to go back in time and talk to each and every person who contributed to each of the multitudes of sects if not the originators of each religion to understand their reasoning for saying or writing what they said. Even a single religion over time has been changed by people who are involved in the transmission of it. Much of the true meanings of religion have been lost in time. What we have now is very different from what may have been say even a hundred years ago. So, to explain relgion in a book would instead take I would say volumes that would overflow the Library of Congress and a new book would be added everyday as, even something like Christianity for example, a new church opens with a person preaching a different interpretation of what Christianity should be.
Boyer should be soundly berated for his lack of understanding in even attempting to explain religion. One cannot make such broad statements as I have stated before.
The only thing I can say Erich is that you should be happy with what you have because in a way you are religious.You believe that all the things in your life can be explained by what you know. So, let those Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and Extraterrastrial Mind Controlling Beings Coming To Take You to Eutopia Believer say what they want. They just want to be happy. If they talk to you it is because they believe that you could be happy like them if you believe in what they believe. Perhaps a few years down the road you would find them believing is something else. Still it probably will still be yet another religion.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Thank you for the article. I was studying to be a religious anthropologist but quickly realized that I didn’t want to be in debt for the rest of my life to pay for my studies in a field that amounted to fiscal suicide
However, I’m always eager to read what other anthropologists have dreamt up in terms of discovering some truth about religion.
What I know from my studies is that all peoples throughout time have had some sort of religious belief. That because of the variety and depth of these religious beliefs, science doesn’t actually have a definition for religion (its just too vast to categorize, yet). But that doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there trying to figure it out.
There are some very famous studies on religion throughout the history of this young science. And it is most interesting to read theories about how one religion might impact others. For those of us who are Christian, for instance, I think you’d be surprised to discover how much our own religion has changed because of contact with other religions, much less how many other religions we’ve influenced. My own interest in the study of religion was sparked by the thought of how these deep personal beliefs might be altered to create new deep personal beliefs. The whole controversy surrounding the DaVinci Code is an example of the way an organized religion can be challenged by outside beliefs.
That these beliefs might be maleable, as suggested by the above research, is not terribly surprising then. But their maleableness doesn’t necessarily point to the source of these thoughts. While they may spring wholesale from the subconscious, we are not yet aware of what it is that informs our subconscious thoughts. Or to put it another way, just because our thoughts upon religion change regularly does not mean that we are inventing our gods. Its quite possible that we are all reacting to some universal phenomenon, but that we are filtering that experience through our subconscious, our culture, and our belief system to inform our conscious mind. In that case, even so-called atheists would be religious in a non-religious sort of way.
I think science would be better off in this area of study if they first accepted religion as part of the human experience and not as some mass delusion that affects all but the most sophisticated scientific minds. That idea is merely an intellectual revisiting of the old cultural imperialism of the 19th century.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
.. the bottom line to the author is: if he is right in his assertions of atheism than both the atheist and the religious person gain nor lose anything.. but, if on the other hand, the author is wrong-he losses everything- while the religious person gains everthing for all eternity..
July 30th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I see that a few people are actually reading the post and responding to the ideas of Pascal Boyer. Mostly, though, this post is turning into a psychology experiment demonstrating the vast number of people who are willing to write a comment without taking time to carefully read the post.
It’s startling how many people are willing to quote the Bible in an attempt to prove the truth of the Bible. And it’s startling how many people would rather rely upon their subjective hopes, dreams and fears than intellectually engage with Boyer’s analysis.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Like most mid western Americans i was raised in a Christian home. As a young adult in my early 20’s i dutiful attended church. from my late 20’s to early 30’s i had a small fitness business in which approx. 90% of my clients were Jewish. Over the years i came to understand the Jewish faith as well as developed a love and respect for these kind, and generous people. I began to question what kind of God would condemn millions of good, honest, spiritual beings of all faiths to burn in hell simply because they were following beliefs their families, communities, or countries had taught them. At age 32 i returned to college and have studied poli-sci for 6yrs. In studying history, gov’t, philosophy etc. This question of why generation after generation of men were willing to sacrifice all with the idea that their religion was the right one baffled me. I began taking every religion and science course my college and university offered. I have studied this subject from several angels, and the philosophy i have adopted is that its ok to say “I don’t know,and neither do you.” Science has made recent discoveries proving that life forms (as in bacterias) have traveled from space via meteors and survived. Indicating life could have began elsewhere and traveled here and then evolved. With that said, scientists have also studied the effects of faith and spirituality as related to health, an quality of life and have found profoundly positive results. There is nothing wrong with believing in something if it improves a persons quality of life. The problems arise when narrow-minded, arrogant, bullies w/ superiority complexes try to impose their beliefs on others. I am not just talking about religious fanatics but non-believers as well that look down on religious people as ignorant, brainwashed, or uneducated. People need to get beyond their own self- righteous, arrogance and learn to say “I don’t know”,and “you might be right”. Someday we may find that the truth is a combination of all of our beliefs. I am neither a believer or non-believer. Not to say I don’t have beliefs. I believe in compassion, tolerance, education, personal and civic responsibility, honesty, and communication. I could continue on and on w/ the things I believe in, but wish to express more importantly what I know. Our leaders use religion as a way to divide us, they use it as a fear-mongering tool. Making people believe we are fighting religious fanatics. that are trying to destroy our way of life. The truth is this war is about power, money, control, and revenge. Their fear and manipulation tactics have paralyzed us as a nation and the result’s are catastrophic. That is the discussion we should be having.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I find it strange that the article states
” Indeed, our spiritual “friends” are much like our real-life friends. How startling is should be to us that spirits and gods all communicate with English-speaking believers in English. How odd it should be that the spirits so often agree with our own moral intuitions. How surprising it should be that the things that we find disgusting are also disgusting to them. Their favorite foods and hobbies are the same as ours! ”
hmm
I would beg to differ.
Most Christian .. talks with spirits.. if that is the wording you use, tell the person that what they are doing, likeing , and so on is not agreeable to God and telling them to change thier ways.
Science seeks to explain what is, how it got here, and what it does, and how it does it.
the person that said gravity is sin and it is sin that holds people on the earth … is … wacko .. those beliefs are not found ANYWHERE in the Christian religion.
Before someone disputes anything, it would be benificial to find out what the actual belief they are trying to … diss… is.
Evolution is an UNPROVEN Theory.
even so … it does not prove how the first life came to be here.
and even taken to its fullest … it does not answer that question.
Most main stream scientests are going with the Big Bang Theroy, however the problem with that is , any explosion causes destruction, not construction.
The Quantium Physisits are starting to lean towards Intelligent Design. although the quickly add that the Intelligence behind the design can in no way be God.
Wanting to think there is no God … does not make God go away,
and Conversley, Wanting there to be a God, does not make one.
The God of the Jews, The one in the Holy Bible, the same book Christians and Jews read says that God HIMSELF says
Test Me
Try ME
Prove me
i dont think he is the least afraid of science… lol
He made it all
The more they investigate into how the world works,
the more they find out, there is intelligence far greater than our own at work.
God made the Sun and the stars and you can see and feel and touch.
Science, and Math, are trying to understand and unfold what is.
The more they PROVE , the more they confirm That there is a God,
Not the other way round.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Virgin Birth ?…….It is not unknown for females to concieve without having been sexually penetrated. Sperm ejaculated in the vicinity of the vagina may enter the vagina and result in impregnation.
Christianity?…………..has a pretty incomparable record to most other religions when it comes to persecution, torture and theft and murder.
Humans seem to need to believe in everything having a “beginning”……maybe it is all really very simple….there always was “something” and there always will be “something”
Rather amusing to hear that God made man in His own image when we consider what that image has managed to achieve down here on good ole planet earth…….do not think that I will put God on my Xmas card list!
July 30th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Erich:
I too will quote the Bible to prove the truth of the Bible and God’s obvious power as the creator. My point here is not something open to opinion and if you will read it is obvious why.
Job Chapter 38 vs 2 through 6
(God speaking to Job) “Who is this that darkens my council with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you will answer me. Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its corner stone?
You should read the rest of this, it is amazing, but I will point out one part of the next four chapters of this great book in the Bible, and that is Job chapter 38 vs 31 says simply; (again, God speaking to Job)
“Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?”
This was written approximately 3500 years ago but even if you go back to the king James translation in the 1500’s man had no idea that the constelation of Pleiades was a group of stars that are bound together moving in one direction, and that Orion was a group of stars moving apart from one another. But the Creator gave us that information long, long before we knew it was true. Man has only figured this out in recent history. These kinds of knowledge God gave us through his Word are hard to deny. As Jesus told Paul……….”It is hard for you to kick against the bricks!”
May the Lord grant you peace and understanding and a life that is full of His truth and His knowledge.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Interesting post, but I have to say it was the responses it generated that took me by surprise. As I read the post the summary I reached was something along the lines of:
Erich is often guilty of expressing disbelief in religion based on the superficial (on the surface) claims of some religions. Since the reasons we have developed religion are complex and the tools to investigate the phenomenon are only recently developed, we should be careful to avoid making simplistic arguments for (and then use them against) religion that generally tend to be incorrect.
Then you have a bunch of comments, and I guess even more than you published, that attack you for saying some religious claim was false, such as those about virgin birth. And a lot of posts randomly attacking science even going so far as say that we can’t even prove that our understanding of electricity and/or solid state physics (electronics) is correct.
Wow, were you able to tell what brought most of these visitors to this post? Most of the time the responses to your posts are fairly technical, if the post (like this one) was, and on topic.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Xiaogou has a very intelligent, articulate response, but alas, is one who does not understand the difference between God and religion. God is our Creator; as such He commisioned the Bible as His instruction for man to be written over millenia. It all fits together- only God could pull that off. You can travel the world, and unless you find yourself in a stale, structured church group or cult, you will not find a dime’s worth of difference in the “interpretation of what Christianity should be”.
Religion, on the other hand is a MANMADE belief structure, seemingly about God, but having no understanding of Him or His precepts. There are so many religions today; but only one God, and only one Book inspired by Him over a period of 4000 years or so, now 6000 years since man was created. No religion on earth can claim this, because it’s simply God-inspired instead of manmade belief.
As for Rob’s response above to my ‘blog’- I’m with you, Rob. If you read my complete commentary, you’ll see I was trying to show the absurdity of belief in the evolutionary theory, and how to prove that God does exist. I, too, am a Christian, and have so many examples of how God has moved powerfully in my life that there’s not enough space here, nor would I, as ‘casting pearls before swine’ just doesn’t work.
May you all be blessed who take time to read these ‘blogs’.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Dear Gary Gittings,
I extend my respect. True, the Inquisition was a crime. But the Church opposed executing people for their beliefs for the first 12 centuries of its history. But sadly the Inquisition afterwards did last for about 500 years. On the other hand, the worst Inquisition was the one in Spain, which started in late 15th century. The Pope condemned its excesses. Once this happened, after about 1500s, the Spanish Inquisition (though still somewhat harsher than the other notorious one in Italy) was actually the fairest court in Spain. Case in point: historians have found several cases of criminals before secular courts, who purposely said something blasphemous, just so they could be taken to the Inquisition instead. If that doesn’t prove that the Inquisition was fairer than secular courts of the same time, I don’t know what does! Anyway, Pope John Paul II apologised, for the burning of people for their beliefs, that did occur.
I feel for Galileo, but that was one instance. There are so many instances when the Church helped fund the development of science. In the dark ages, it was monasteries that kept ancient knowledge alive. The Church helped fund the 1st Universities in 12th century. Christian beliefs of “Faith and Reason” propelled the scientific advances of later centuries (it’s no coincidence that modern science was born in Europe). Copernicus was afraid of his colleagues making fun of him for his beliefs, so he went to none other than Pope Paul III for support! Galileo was a devout Christian! Newton’s discoveries in physics and calculus were propelled by his religious beliefs. Jesuit priests have done so much for science. In 19th century, 10% of scientists were Catholic priests (although probably less than 1% of the general population were clergy)! A Jesuit came up with Big Bang theory in 1920s - seeing it as an explanation for creation. There are many more examples of Christianity helping - not opposing - science.
Many Meso-American Indians, such as Mayas and Aztecs, practiced human sacrifice. Christianity was opposed to such brutality. Pope Paul III, when he found out about the brutalities of many Spanish conquistadors, wrote the decree “Sublimis Deus,” often called the Magna Carta of Indian rights, in 1537. It proclaimed that “the Indians were truly human and capable of receiving the faith and that they were not to be deprived of their liberty or property, even though they may be outside of the faith.”
Most Christians (except for evangelical southern Christians) don’t believe that non-Christians will burn in hell. Vatican II taught in Lumen Gentium: “For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation.”
I personally can’t stand people who say that non-Christians will burn in hell.
Finally, many people acknowledge that modern ideas of universal human rights, equality of all human beings, just war doctrine (actually invented by St. Augustine), and other ideas we cherish, are rooted in the teachings of a preacher who lived in Judea 2000 years ago, and referred to Himself as the Messiah, and only wanted for human beings to love and respect each other and to do what God desires.
Glory be to Jesus Christ, Son of God and our Saviour, for ever and ever! Amen.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
This is the most beligerent waste of time I’ve enjoyed in a long time.
So here is my take.
I like the symbolism of the “Jedi”. I can feel the force eminating from all living things. As a code to live by, it puts us in the category of all living things. The responsibility is vast and does not pretend that man is above all other life. Why is there only a human soul?
I have yet to be spoken to or feel god in a church. And yet he has never failed to come for a visit when I am at the river at the crack of dawn.
The best thing about the “Jedi” religion is that there is NO ONE putting himself between you and god (the force).
I find it repugnant that some people still pretend that god wants you to follow them.
please note that if you pretend to represent god, you do not.
July 30th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Erich, I agree. I’ve read Pascal Boyer’s Religion Explained and came away with a much greater appreciation for both the variety and depth of unjustifiable claims that humans believe and the mental mechanisms that allow such credulousness to occur. Mainstream religious believers have lots of company throughout the world and would do well to read about the beliefs of other lesser known cultures and tribes and ask themselves the question: how can those people possibly believe that which they believe? while recognizing the fact that their supernatural beliefs are no different in kind, just content. Boyer’s points that you print in this article are a nice summary.
Two other brief comments. I’ve never ever been happier in my life: free of depression, needless anxiety, etc. It all came about because I learned to think clearly and critically (meaning that I’m not willing to accept unreasonable claims that lack evidential support nor am I willing to consider any assertions that can never be proven or disproven). And, yes, my imagination is still intact — imagine that!
And, am says: “My point being to you… TO BE A HAPPY PERSON, BE HAPPY FOR SOMEONE ELSE. You should try it.”
To am and others I ask: are we to be happy for the terrorists of 911 and the others who have been and are willing to kill and then die because of the promise of great rewards in the hereafter? Many of them are happy and even blissful at the moment they end their lives along with the lives of many innocents. Until we realize as a society that such fantasies, no matter how emotionally expedient, are part of the problem, not the solution, unnecessary ideological battles and human suffering will rage on. We can’t afford to indulge in these fantasies anymore. Conventional or not, if there is no way to keep them alive other than utter will, best to let them fade into obscurity.
Time to wake up. Time to grow up. There is no Santa but natural wonders (including many delightful humans) abound all around us. That’s plenty (and healthy) for me.
July 30th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I see religion more or less as the dark side of what could be called a social conscience. The concept is difficult to explain.
Social animals form groups. these groups have a distinct behavior that is often unlike that of its constituent individuals. This behavior, in turn, pressures the individuals in compliance with the groups norms. In effect, the sum of the parts is much more that the whole.
Take dogs as an example. They are very social animals. As a pet, a dog can be a furry friend, a protector, and a dependant, all at the same time. But, when you get 3 dogs together, they begin to act like a pack. A dog pack is a hunting group. The purpose is the find something and kill it.
Organised religions began as primitive governments. The nature of people is such that we do not care to take on additional responsibilities, but we will if no-one else is there to do the job. THe problem with this is that people with no particularly useful skill tend to gravitate toward positions of authority. and usually they (the leaders) are the least responsible members of the society. Eventually, the only way to defer accountability for their actions, is blame the bad things on some supernatural “higher intelligence”.
Social groups seem to have a collective intelligence. This intelligence is always less than the average of the individual member, and as the membership grows, the collective intelligence shrinks. Religion is the armor of the dictators. it provides a wall to block knowledge for those that would question the authority of the irresponsible leadership.
Man created god in his image. Not the other way around.
July 30th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
While I can’t argue with any of the statements about religion in your article, I am annoyed with your attitude towards the “gullible” believers who believe out of “fear and ingnorance”. Insulting or belittling people who don’t agree with you is not an intelligent arguement. For the record I share many of the opinions that you have outlined in this article, but I have to respect the opinions of others and refuse to profess that my opinion is the only correct one. In fact I almost envy the believer’s notion that it is all a question of faith. It makes things a lot simpler.
Since I have the opportunity, I will throw just a few comments out to add to discussion.
1. While religion has been the major cause of many wars and untold numbers of deaths throughout the ages, it is not the belief that is to blame. It is rather the blind following of the leaders of organized religion that should be blamed. (can also apply to blind following of political leadership, but that’s another post)
2. Science must share the blame for wars/deaths because although they may have been religiosly inspired, the best science of every age was employed to increase the slaughtering capabilities.
3. In your post, you mention “English speaking God”. The God of Christianity is the same God of Judism and Islam (some might argue all religions), so the language would likely be whatever language the beleiver would understand.
4. On the same subject, all of your religious statements used as examples of unbeleivable statements are from Christianity. This implies that you are biast against Christianity, or you didn’t bother to look into any other religions “oxymoronic” beliefs. Reincarnation (Hindhu), the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Judism), Acension of Mohammed (Islam)…….
Lots of hard to explain beliefs out there, don’t limit the discussion to just Christianity.
That’s enough for now I guess.
July 30th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
If “God” is that greate and made all of this: why does he need myths and unclear methods to communicate to his creatures? If he made a plant to have chlorophyl to make use of light- why is it that he has to be all mystical when speaking to man?
Is harder to believe that nature would go against its rules (to create this so called mirecales) or to believe that man would tell a lie and continue telling it, especialy for personal gain?
July 30th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
John McNally:
Thanks for stopping by. It’s like a crazy fireworks show down here in the comments section. Lots of bright colors and convoluted shapes. The extent to which people are displaying great passion does leave me scratching my head. It seems that most of these commentors are using this post as a mere excuse to shoot off their prepackaged positions on science/religion. Very few people have referred to Pascal Boyer or his article (the link to the article is embedded in the post).
Based upon my traffic software, most of these comments are being referred by Netscape. I thus suspect that many of these comments are by people new to this site.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I find it hard to believe there are people still challenging the THEORY of Evolution - that’s like challenging the THEORY of GRAVITY! Duh. . .it’s a term used to gather information, information that may evolve as we get smarter - tho I fear after reading all these responses that is not in the near future. And for those people who have convinced themselves that Science state the Universe was created from nothing - nothing could be further from the truth. You only say that because you are ignorant of Science.
The wars will stop once we get past the myths of god and religion. . .but, again, after reading these responses, I can only feel sadness.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
If you wanted to prove that the Christian religions was false and that God does not exist - not just the rediculous virgin idea - all you would have to do would be to carry on as Jesus did. As the Jewish Mesiah who would lead the Jews out from under Roman rule - like Moses with the Egyptions - Jesus was hung out to dry. No mirical happened and now his family’s tomb, including Jesus’, has been found. The bible was written to reinterpret Jesus’ life and times. Nothing in Christianity has any merit other than as a social experiment to prove the opposit of what the religion currently stands for.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Pardon me Erich and others who are reading the post. I degress for a moment to answer a comment made to me. Please understand that this comment is my personal belief and does not in anyway refer to anyone besides the person I am sending the message.
Mo King I understand that you may be upset with what I wrote. I made no mention of God nor of the Bible. I believe as you do about both. Then I have also talked with people who say they are Christians and I have noticed differences that have caused mass divisions even within the same chuch to the point that one group breaks away from another because they believe that thier interpretation of the Bible is better than the other’s. For example, the question of Baptism. Variations vary from is it necessary, or not? Does the person needs to be submerged under water or just sprinkled? A baby needs to be baptised or the person needs to be cognizant and fully aware of the choices he is making? I could go on, but the simple idea as baptism has been interpreted in many ways. Who is right? I cannot say, but if I had a chance to talk to Jesus himself he could answer the question. Until that happens each of us no matter what religion we belong to have to go on faith and THAT is what this is all about. I apoligize to anyone who is not Christian or belongs to a faith that believes in Baptisms one way or another. I am not siding with anyone. This is just my observations.
I am saying that the only way to find out the truth is to talk to the people who wrote what is now written no matter what religion they are affiliated with. By talking with the originators or contributors you will learn truely what is going on. To witness the events as they transpire will be definitely an eye opener. Perhaps if it could happen it would change the way even those who believe in a faith to really answer the questions like, do we crack the egg from the small end or the big end? Perhaps it should be cracked in the middle or perhaps it does not matter?
Until then have faith in what you believe in. Seek the truth for yourself.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
There are free spelling lessons available on-line, in case anyone is interested. I’m not necessarily directing this comment at those who are most vehemently attacking this post.
For example, see http://www.spelling.hemscott.net/
July 30th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Erich-I am not fearful of putting religion under the microscope. There has always been people and entire societies, kingdoms, etc, that have misinterpreted the bible. That doesn’t make the Bible wrong but it does say something about the people who misinterpret the Bible. So, you can say the same about people who speak of the theory of evolution as if it were fact and draw reference to an individual that has the same opinion as himself.
Erich, you have put religion under the microscope possibly biased. I think that mankind basically rebells at the thought of answering to a supreme being especially when they think they are more intelligent than the vast majority.
You are in the same boat as some religious people. You need to stop shooting holes in the bottom so your boat.
Don’t worry about people and their spelling. This is an exchange of ideas and belief. Your not their teacher nor their parent you arrogant a**.
July 30th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Spelling: Get the FireFox browser. More secure than IE, built-in spell-checking for all entry fields, and it will copy all your IE favorites, bookmarks, etc. when it installs.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Jerry:
The Bible, which you claim to be an extraordinarily perfect book, is a document that promotes slavery (and see here) as well as all sorts of oppression and violence (and especially see here). These huge problems with the Bible are some of the reasons that traditional religious beliefs are fading in America.
These major problems with the Bible lead to shameless cherry-picking by Believers-they read only the useful parts and pretend the embarrassing parts aren’t even there. Children can see through these techniques. That’s why 88 percent of the children raised in evangelical homes leave church at the age of 18, never to return.
Because the Bible is so full of violence, ambiguities and contradictions, I seek a better way. You consider my need to seek truth beyond the Bible as arrogant, which is your prerogative. I carefully treat all religious books with the same level of skepticism with which I treat all other written works, including science books. Can you assert the same?
I’m not harping on people who follow religions. Many religious people (They include many close friends) are truly extraordinary and generous people. My problem is with people who gullibly follow religions because they’ve been scared into doing so. My problem is also with people who strut around thinking that they are superior to good-hearted non-religious people just because they claim to read and claim to believe the Bible.
BTW, did you call me an offensive name because you’ve run out of arguments?
July 30th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Look at all you people shouting your opinions at one another. Many of you not actually spellling anything correctly or using somewhat proper grammar. That is all beside the point though. My opinion (more about your comments not about the article so much) is this, what is the point? We all go six feet under at some point, and we (living humans) will most likely never know what, if anything, happens after death. Not to mention we (the people responding) won’t be around to see the day the world ends anyway, so let’s all go outside and enjoy the fresh air.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:51 am
Erich I never made any of the claims you have stated and it is clear that you strut around thinking that you are superior to good-hearted religious people.
Of course I think you are full of it. Bye
July 31st, 2007 at 9:09 am
Erich: Jerry evidently is a follower of the late huckster , Rev. Gerry Falwell, who said ” Christians, like soldiers and slaves, don’t ask questions”. That statement made many of his followers very proud that he would say such a thing. I take the statement as a celebration of the group’s ignorance.
Why is that a cause for celebration? Oh, I forgot. You’re not supposed to ask questions!
July 31st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Erich beware not to follow into the same trap that you say others do. You claim that “they read only the useful parts and pretend the embarrassing parts aren’t even there.” It is often the same with people who wish to say bad things about the Bible. They point the bad things as in the slavery theory and all the bad things in the Bible and do not look at all the good things in the Bible and promote the same with equal enthusiasm. I also agree that the Bible is so full of violence, ambiguities and contradicions. Yes, even Jesus lost his temper and died a gruesome death. It is part of humanity. Personally I have found the United States if not all parts of the world where man lives to be full of violence, ambiguities and contradicions but, I do not want to leave it and go some where else. Instead I look at it try to make sense of all this violence, ambiguities and contradicions and make peace with myself. To be truthful if I was a child of some of these Evangelist I would take off as soon as I can because many I have met are insufferable. I would not swallow lot of the things they teach because God said for them to say it.
The Bible is not a flowery book that hides all the bad things and only promote the good. Many religions and sadly even Christians promote the good and try to hide the bad. People tend to do that. I have not met one politician who truthfully tells it all. Instead they promote the good and hide the bad (as much as possibly.) They too are often full of ambiguities and contradictions. Those who are truthful or open are often shunned or thought badly(and not in office long). I personally am ashamed of some of the things I have done.
I do believe that many Christians do only read the parts of the Bible they can accept and ignore the rest. They are even willing to excerpt parts of the Bible to make outlandish claims on how people both Christians and non-Christians should behave or act. It should be the opposite as the Bible should be teaching the reading Christians how to behave and act.
Again I am not defending the Bible, but I hope you take the time to make a study of the Bible and not just one, but the many versions of it to determine what is going on why is the Bible is so full of violence, ambiguities and contradicions. Perhaps you can make peace with yourself about the Bible.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Xiaogou: The reason a few fatal defects are important to note in the Bible is that most of the most vocal and insufferable supporters of the Bible are people who claim that the Bible is “inerrant,” totally and completely true and without error.
Until we can agree that the Bible has errors, contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible, there is little hope of a conversation between believers and skeptics. It is clear that there are hundreds of errors, inaccuracies, and episodes of senseless violence in the Bible (see http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/). Until we can agree that the Bible is in many ways unsavory and that Believers do their cherry-picking in much the same way that skeptics consider candidates for valid moral principles, the prospects of a conversation are dim, indeed (for evidence, see the numerous comments to this post, in which the commentor shows no indication that he or she has actually read or understood the post).
Your advice is well taken, however.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Erich I find no argument to your last post. First there are many Bibles and many vary for one another on more than one point so yes there has to be problems with someone saying that the Bible is totally beyond tampering with. Second, I am not asking for you to have a logical dialog with believers of the Bible. Trying to speak logically with them I agree will be pointless and counterproductive. I have had same lack of success as you.
You are seeking answers to religion and as I have pointed out that it is a very deep subject worthy of deep and complex study. The idea is not to become a heckler, but a man of knowledge. If you want to understand religion is to go beyond the written word and understand the heart of what is being said. Learn the lessons in the words and use them to improve your life and in doing so improve the life of others.
The heart of three influential religions lies in the Tanakh, the scriptures of the Hebrew people. From that branch comes the Bible’s New Testament for the related two after that. Finally the Koran is the last text of that major branch of religion, Islam.
One thing to remember when going over these books is that over time there will naturally be errors and inaccuracies due to errors in translation and transmission. Again I cannot stress that unless you can talk to the authors of the various parts who really know what went on. If we could look on them and realize that they are perhaps writing about something way above what their understanding and could easily be explained by a perfectly simple scientific phenomenon accurately. On the other hand you may witness a miracle which is indescribable in human terms. Just as some person in the distance future finding a book on the big bang theory will criticize us because we are observing something that is way beyond our scope of understanding to describe. They will scoff at us say, “The big bang theory is full of errors and inaccuracies.”
As for violence I do not know of any book of human endeavors to be without it. Chemistry has gun powder and chemical warfare. Physics has its A-bomb and laws of gravity to determine the path of artillery shells falling on helpless innocence. Should we stop reading those books as well?
July 31st, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Xiaogou: I appreciate your suggestions. I will continue to look for wisdom in the various holy books, including the Bible. Holy books are not the exclusive depository of wisdom, however. How about reading Shakespeare? How about conversations with ordinary (as in not famous) people? How about the great wisdom you’ll find in many short quotes (e.g., try here: http://www.quotationspage.com/ )? I think it is a great mistake to limit one’s sources of spiritual guidance to the official holy books of bureacratic religions. Worthy advice can be found in innumerable small corners of the world, as well as in non-religious songs, poetry and prose.
One other point. Chemistry and physics books do not pretend to give moral guidance. The Bible, rife with oppression and violence, does.
August 1st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
You are right to look into everything and it is good that you realize that holy books are not the only books of wisdom. Did you read the Bible story that tells of a man who gains wisdom from the mouth of a donkey? Many Christians miss this very important message that wisdom comes from many sources and if one does not keep his eyes and ears open (and preferably mouth shut, which is hard for many Christians) then they miss out on such hidden wisdoms. One message they often miss is when people tell them stop being so annoying:P
I guess I did not make my second point out very clearly. Violence and oppression is part and parcel of human history and endeavors. If you look at the Bible it is not only a spiritual guide, but the chronology of a race of people. If we rule out a book just because they contain violence and oppression, many of the classics that we read will be gone from our book shelves such as Shakespeare, Homer and Teenage Ninja Mutant Turtles. So unless we apply the same rule to all our media it becomes prejudice. The key here is spiritual guidance. It is not law, not something immutable or set in stone (unless you count the Ten Commandments which no longer exist except in reference and the Hebrews rejected and broke the first set.) In fact Jesus himself said let us get rid of the Laws. If a Christian uses the Bible as a law of life book and follows it blindly, such as young Christians and legalistic Christians do, they become the modern day Pharisees and Sadducees that Jesus berated. Besides, if the Bible was all flowery with rainbows, apple pie and Chevrolet I would definitely be sick or diabetic. On the other hand if the Bible was like an immutable instruction book sans the lives of the people in it, it would be boring and worse be used by all sorts of control freaks leading us.
I understand you are upset with Christians but let’s be fair to the Bible. As Gandhi said I have no problem with Christianity, only with Christians (sorry about the misquote). I say go on bashing Christians who stray off the path. But, let people read the Bible unbiased by other people’s opinions. Let people decide if it is a good book or a book about violence and oppression. I believe not everybody is an idiot and can’t come to a decision by themselves. If they don’t get it I just smile because I know the truth or, as in this conversation with you, we can discuss it. By the way have you actually studied the Bible? I know most Christians have read the Bible, but like Confucius and Zen the meanings are often hidden within the words. I still have problems with Zen.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:32 am
Erich has caused a little riot here with his post, eh?
Xiaogou, that all makes sense what you say, but I don’t think Erich ever said that the Bible only consists of crime and violence and is worse than other source of spiritual writings. I think he made it quite clear here:
It’s ok if people cherry-pick and prefer the sections about loving thy neighbor. What irritates though is their vehment denial of contradictions in the other parts and their imposing of their beliefs on other people who prefer not to believe due to these flaws. I assume if they would shut up and believe in quiet without disturbing anybody nobody would trouble that much to engage in arguments about their beliefs. Unfortunately, they are not happy with having found the right way, they also feel the need to proselytize and influence other people’s life. I see pointing out