--- William T Goodall wrote:
> on 3/7/02 Deborah Harrell wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, William T Goodall wrote:
> >>
> >> Someone who believes the pernicious nonsense of
> >> religion is capable of *any*
> >> evil act.
> >>
> >> This follows from basic logic. If you insert a
> false
> >> axiom into a system
> >> ("There is a God" for example) you can then prove
> >> *anything at all* to be
> >> true, and thereby justify any act.
> >>
> >> --
> > To call all religion "pernicious nonsense" is
> > unjustifiable overkill; there is without question
> a
> > great deal of foolishness and outright absurdity
> in
> > any religion,
>
> I think one of the pillars of evil is dishonesty -
> lying to others or to
> oneself. Whatever good might be mixed in with
> religion is outweighed by the
> untruthfulness.
'Untruthfulness' in your opinion; I am not lying when
I say that I believe in a divine power, nor when I say
that I have no proof to offer, other than the awe I
feel when I contemplate this marvelous universe in
which we live. And while I am far from perfect, I do
not think that I am evil, either.
> > but what nonsense is it to ask that 'one
> > love one's neighbor as oneself?' Or to have
> compassion
> > for the weak, sick or poor, and to respond to the
> > needs of those less fortunate than oneself? Most
> of
> > the major religions teach this - although
> admittedly
> > far too few 'adherents' actually follow those
> > precepts.
>
> These are fine ideas, but are not logically
> connected to religion. Religion
> adopts them as the sugar coating on the poison pill.
> Who would adopt a
> belief in a religion of it consisted of pure
> nonsense without some
> attractive and reasonable ideas?
>
I am not sure how to respond to this...my reaction to
the contradictions and absurdities that I have found
in Christianity is to toss _them_ out and hold on to
the essential message of 'The Golden Rule' (although I
certainly would make exception for those who intend to
do me serious bodily harm; this brings up the
interesting notion that when Jesus said "turn the
other cheek," he meant 'make them acknowledge you as
an equal.' This idea came from a PBS program (can't
remember the title, sorry) which noted that in Roman
times, a back-handed strike across the face was 'by
definition' from superior to social inferior, while a
palm slap to the face was between _equals_. So instead
of meek submission, turning the other cheek was bold
provocation...but still 'ahimsa'-like.).
> >
> > Because of the excesses of the past (particularly
> in
> > Christianity, since I grew up in that faith) -
> > pogroms, the Inquisition, witch hunts, (etc.)Nth -
> I
> > call myself 'spiritual' rather than 'religious,'
> but
> > there are many good people, who have worked to
> combat
> > poverty, educate the ignorant and heal the ill
> (just
> > to name a few), who _do_ identify themselves as
> > 'religious.' It doesn't mean that they've turned
> off
> > their brains or slavishly follow all the dictates
> of
> > their church or are "capable of *any* evil act."
> And
> > yes _of course_ there are too many who have, and
> > do...but one only has to look to the former USSR's
> > history to know that atrocity is _not_ limited to
> > people who believe in a deity for justification of
> > their actions.
> >
> > As for "justifying any act," why then would there
> be
> > laws/commandments supposedly sent by a god and
> whose
> > breaking would lead to severe punishment ('hell'
> or
> > 'Gehenna' or reincarnation as a cockroach)?
> > Fundamentalists of all ilk certainly try to
> justify
> > their hate-mongering by proclaiming it to be the
> "will
> > of God," but they have to ignore (at least part
> of)
> > their messiah's message. {For the record, I would
> > _not_ claim that executing child molesters was
> God's
> > will -- but it damn well would be MINE.}
>
> Actually I was making a (possibly abstruse) point
> about the nature of
> rational argument. Logical arguments, whether one is
> using Boolean algebra
> or predicate calculus or whatever are only *truth
> preserving*. Garbage in,
> garbage out. If you adopt a falsehood as a premise
> you can get anything to
> come out. Constructing a particular
> plausible-looking argument for
> something obnoxious is an exercise for the reader...
>
I respectfully disagree with your implied assessment
that belief in a divine power is "garbage."
> >
> > And (now I'm nit-picking) how can you _disprove_
> an
> > unprovable premise eg "There is a God?" (All those
> > catechism lessons, and I only remember that Martin
> > Luther said, "Faith alone!" - OK, and nailed the
> 95
> > Theses to the door at the Diet of Worms (Wurms?)
> and
> > started the Reformation...or something like that
> > <sheepish grin>.)
>
> Of course, and evolution is just a theory, right?
> This is just playing with
> different meanings of 'proof'. I can't prove that
> the world wasn't created
> yesterday at 11.35 am complete with fake geological
> record and fake memories
> for everyone. Not in the way I can prove a
> mathematical theorem.
>
> But I can prove it beyond reasonable doubt, as in a
> court of law. And in
> scientific terms the 'yesterday at 11.35am'
> hypothesis raises more questions
> and provides fewer answers than the standard view of
> reality.
>
> I think it is also beyond reasonable doubt that
> God/gods/ghosts/supernatural
> stuff doesn't exist. I can't see any way rational
> way of disagreeing with
> that, and irrational ways don't interest me.
>
> It is also clear that we don't get a better
> understanding of how anything in
> the world works by supposing an extra supernatural
> element. It just isn't
> necessary. [And if it could be included it wouldn't
> be supernatural anymore
> anyway]
>
I certainly think that evolution and a belief in the
divine are not incompatible; I remember my brother and
I, back in junior high, concluding that the 7 days in
Genesis corresponded to the 7 geological ages, with
our era being the 'day' when God was resting. (Or have
they changed the 7 geological ages? I haven't looked
up any of that info in decades.)
I'm not sure that belief improves my _understanding_
of anything, but it does enhance my _appreciation_ of
it.
Just for grins, here are two sites that look at the
possibility that our brains are "hard-wired" to
believe in the divine, one pro:
http://www.andrewnewberg.com/qna.asp
and one con:
http://www.factsource.com/cut/tle.html
Not-Afraid-of-Uncertainty Maru
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com
