This Catholic Journey
thanks so much for sharing this one...what a wonderful young man.
Oh yes! The site feed is much better!
I was confused for awhile cause I couldn't get to your blog. I guess maybe this is why?
Hope you are well. Take care!
It seriously brought a tear to my eye. Hard to believe for an agnostic I know.
But it is touching to hear a child deal with death in a positive manner. It really is not something that only Christian children can do. There are many inspiring stories about death that can help children come to terms with it, some true, some not. The important thing is for a child to understand that death is a natural, unavoidable thing and that it makes us who we are. We must celebrate the life that came before the death for without it there is nothing.
Oh, and he shows remarkable humility for a child. The ability to realize he makes mistakes and that the important part is to learn from them is something we all need to understand better.
His testament is not to being Christian but rather being human.
-Kermit
Well, Kermit, I disagree with you here. His testament is to being a Christian AND to being human and to understanding his humanity through Christian eyes.
Death doesn't make us who we are... life does and this kid sees an example of the value of life through what God did in giving his only Son to atone for our sin.
I'm glad the story touched you and it's no surprise despite your agnosticism. God desires to touch all of us, even those who doubt his existence.
Peace be with you.
"It really is not something that only Christian children can do."
No one said it was...
"His testament is not to being Christian but rather being human."
Faith is an element of being human, this is simply obvious and something one has to accept. It seems this child displays a healthy faith which has positively effected his outlook. Why try to strip it from the equation?
I do not debate that this child is religious and obviously has benefited from being so. It has made him feel better about death in this case.
My problem is this; what he has been told, namely that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for our sins, may not be true. Not that it is not true but that what was probably told to him by his elders as fact, is possibly not true. I do not understand the value in believing something simply because you want it to be true.
And, to me, the ironic thing is that his insight and understanding of death and life is something that can be had without believing in a specific religious doctrine. So, stripping it from the equation would serve to be more honest with the child and make his faith even healthier. Is a "healthy faith" one that leads a child to believe something that may not be true?
Suppose I told my child to believe in Santa Clause and that when you die you go to the North Pole and that he should just believe me because I believe this and strong faith is what makes it so. And pray to Santa because he understands death. Would you say this is a healthy faith? Why not? Because it is not true or because I do not know if it is true? If my child benefits from it and is comforted by it does that make it OK to have faith in?
I don't want to belittle how wonderful it is that this child is coping with something bad that happened and how even greater it is that he understands his own failings. But for anyone to say to a child that we know, for a fact, that a man who lived 2000 years ago was Gods son and that he died for us when we don't just seems not fair to the child.
-Take care, I am probably wearing out my welcome. Sorry, I WAS moved by it though.
On the other hand, what he has been told MAY, in fact, be true... in which case, we could be causing harm to his eternal soul by NOT teaching this to him...
Teach him and it's false, no harm done. Teach him and it's true, eternity with God. Don't teach him and it's false, no harm done. Don't teach him and it's true, possible eternity in hell.
Which risk is greater?
How healthy would it be to keep your child from believing something that MAY be true, when that truth could be detrimental to the state of his eternal soul?
WOW! Are you really arguing that because something "might" be true we should teach it as truth? Do you have any idea how many things just "might" be true and might affect this child's eternal soul? So, we should teach him that the Jewish belief that Jesus is still coming is true because it "might" be true??
And how can you say "teach him and it's false, no harm done??" What if the true God is some other religion's God and what if what you teach him blinds him from seeing it? Any harm done then? What if God does not want followers at all and will only accept those that did not believe? Are terrorists that are taught at a young age harmed when their teacher told them that Christianity and America are evil?
I am not even suggesting to not teach him. I am just saying be truthful with him in telling him these are things we do not know. Teach him, yes, by all means teach him all religions! But do not tell him you know when you don't. Do not assume you know Gods thoughts and have a corner on truth. When you do that to a child they become blind to other possibilities. Possibilities that God may want the child to be aware of.
So where is the greater risk now? Do you claim to know what only God can? That is, the truth of your religion? Are you SO certain in your belief that you can say without a doubt that teaching the child as though it were fact is what God wants?
I would love it if a preacher or Sunday school teacher would start off by saying, "Alright children, we are going to read the Bible today. What you are about to hear 'MAY in fact be true' and I, myself believe it is but I do not know for sure. It is up to you decide for yourself." But, unfortunately it is rarely, if ever, taught this way. As this child is a testament to. He has been told that it is a fact that Jesus is the son of God and that he died for him. Something that can put him at risk of following a false God.
Is this not a greater risk?
-Kermit
Oh teh noes, this kid is smart, AND he believes in Jesus!!!111!
"My problem is this; what he has been told, namely that Jesus was the son of God and that he died for our sins, may not be true. Not that it is not true but that what was probably told to him by his elders as fact, is possibly not true. I do not understand the value in believing something simply because you want it to be true."
As far as we know no one is stating anything to kids as "fact". Raising a child within a faith tradition *and* encouraging free thought are not mutually exclusive -- kids will make their own decisions when they are ready, sometimes fairly early if you teach them right. ;) Normal faith environments don't promote some kind of hard-line, indisputable view that must not be questioned.
"Suppose I told my child to believe in Santa Clause and that when you die you go to the North Pole and that he should just believe me because I believe this and strong faith is what makes it so."
Your Santa Clause parallel doesn't work, for the simple reason that unlike Jesus, there is no record for Santa's existence, no eye witnesses, no scores of brilliant minds willing to philosophize, write music (not talking about "jingle bells" here, sorry), or even be martyred for the sake of Santa.
"But for anyone to say to a child that we know, for a fact, that a man who lived 2000 years ago was Gods son and that he died for us when we don't just seems not fair to the child."
By your logic, why should Columbus have believed in sailing to a "new world", when he couldn't be 100% certain there was anything to sail? Why should Lindberg have dared to fly across the Atlantic, when no one could tell him 100% that his plane would make it? What about the astronauts? Politicians? Someone should have told these people there is no absolute guarantee. They'd probably have responded with a healthy "DUH!" ;)
Getting to the point, from what you've written it seems you lack a basic understanding of the concept of faith. Science (I mention science since I assume this is what you mean by facts) and faith generally serve different roles, though they are often related. Faith implies an element of risk, as do almost all other areas of human endeavor.
Above are a few basic examples where individuals exhibited a form of "faith" despite not having 100% technical assurance, only probabilities. Before you state that Christianity lacks technical assurance or logic, I suggest you consult one of the many brilliant theologians who have lived through the ages, not to mention the historical record, scientific theories which propose an initial "mover" (disrupting the singularity which would eventually become our universe), and etc. (In fact, you could make a strong case that this "scholastic" element within Christianity is one of the bigger reasons it survived early on against other intellectually inferior options.)
In addition to the above, we have a vast amount of
In addition to the above, we have a vast amount of art and music from authors who attributed their "gifts" (at least in some form) to their faith in the Christian God. This wealth of art and literature shows that healthy faith (by nature) includes a "thinking" element, and encourages intelligent thought and creative drive. As an aside, it also goes to show the naivety of your Santa statement -- that is, unless you think yourself brighter than St. Augustine or J.S Bach, or have something to contribute beyond them. Not to say you can't our shouldn't disagree with them, but you'll have to try a little harder than your North Pole analogy if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Just to touch on the following:
"Is a "healthy faith" one that leads a child to believe something that may not be true?"
A healthy faith is one that encourages positive values and development, and encourages them to exercise the gifts they are given and use their own minds. I also argue that it better enables children to deal with the risks and unpredictable nature of life better, as they aren't reliant upon 100% reassurance before attempting anything in life.
It is healthy to share a positive faith tradition with kids, they will either accept or reject it on their own. On the other hand, forcing a narrow-minded, shallow viewpoint on a child is obviously wrong, and something no one here will argue for.
For an (extreme) example of an "unhealthy" faith (within a religious context), you could look an any number of situations like Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, etc. Unhealthy faith practices usually include extreme self destructive tendencies, very little or skewed logic, and a tribal-type group psychology. Obviously, a little kid and Jesus doesn't fall within this description. As I stated above, kids aren't usually mindless bots that accept whatever you teach them without further thought.
"Are you SO certain in your belief that you can say without a doubt that teaching the child as though it were fact is what God wants?"
Yes, I am... without one single doubt.
Damion,
I just went to church 2 Sundays ago and it was a service all about death and dying. This was not a hard line church by any means. It was the First United Church of Christ. During the sermon the preach brought the kids up front to talk. My 12 year old and 9 did not go up as this is not our church we went there to honor their great grand mother's recent death. This was her church. The preach in no uncertain terms told the children about heaven and that fact that it is a place that while we do not know exactly what it is it, without a doubt exists and Jesus is the way to get there. There wa no comments like, "I think there is a heaven" or "if you too believe." No, it was all very factual according to this preacher. In fact my 12 year old said after the service, "you know what gets me dad? That preacher was telling those kids things that he doesn't know." I said, "Yes, you are correct but he believes it and many do. He did say some good things about death though and about how important it is to understand it is a natural thing." She agreed.
So, I do not agree that children are taught, by any means, to question Christianity. I was told over and over in sermon after sermon how Jesus was God’s son and he died for me. Not once did the church mention that this was just a belief and as such could possibly be wrong. I remember being astonished to find out that Jewish people believed Jesus had not even come yet. WOW! I thought, a whole race of people that don't believe in Jesus? How was that possible??
That was the beginning of my awakening. Then I learned about all the other religions out there and the only logical conclusion for me was that no one knows. And when I saw things like Jonestown, Waco and 911 and the Cargo Cults that notion only made more sense. Religion is a natural part of any civilization and takes advantage of our affinity to regard faith highly. That is we, as humans, regard faith highly because it benefits us in group survival. And this high regard for faith has been exploited by religion in order to survive. That makes so much logical sense to me!
You said:
"A healthy faith is one that encourages positive values and development, and encourages them to exercise the gifts they are given and use their own minds. I also argue that it better enables children to deal with the risks and unpredictable nature of life better, as they aren't reliant upon 100% reassurance before attempting anything in life."
Do you know how many “faiths” would do this? Quite a few. Even my agnosticism does not prevent me from achieving what you said here. In fact I would argue that my agnosticism even better allows for it all. Especially the “use their own minds” part. Faith by definition encourages a child to not use their own mind, rather, as the Bible says, “Blessed is he who believes but has not seen.” In other words belief is THE most important ingredient not thinking or rationalization. Believe
... Ah, my post seems to have been cut off here is the rest...
Believe first, think second it would seem to me.
And how are you not “reliant upon 100% reassurance before attempting anything in life” if you have faith? Isn’t that what faith is all about in religion? Namely that, as long as you have faith, you are reassured that everything you do will be OK. Faith is the tool that gives you 100% reassurance before you do anything and therefore because of this faith all will be OK. And it is only seen in faith that a person claims 100% truth. I myself would never make a 100% claim as I readily admit that there is a level of improbability in every thing I have faith in.
This is a fascinating paragraph:
“It is healthy to share a positive faith tradition with kids, they will either accept or reject it on their own. On the other hand, forcing a narrow-minded, shallow viewpoint on a child is obviously wrong, and something no one here will argue for.”
How can a child reject a religion that has been a part of their life from birth? How can a child that is told their whole life by their friends and family that there is a God and that you must follow these rules to get to heaven have an objective, open mind?? I am not saying some don’t but many find it hard to. You are promoting the very narrow-minded, shallow viewpoint that you say is wrong. Is not my viewpoint the most open-minded there can be? I tell my kids that I do not know what happens when we die. I do not know if there is a God. I tell them what Christians believe, what Jews believe, what Buddhists believe. I tell them if they can find out I’d like to know. I tell them life is wonderful and to respect it and to do to others as you would have done to yourself. I tell them question everything and have faith in only that which stands a high likelihood of being true.
Is that not the most open minded up-bringing a child can get?
And while it is true that Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, Waco, etc. are extreme cases of faith gone bad, I would venture that each and every one of those cults started because a child was told it is OK to believe without seeing. Once their brains accepted this notion they became susceptible to believing the teachings of an extremist. *Note* I do not think the majority of Christians, you and my parents included, are stupid enough to fall for such cults. But I do think that the first step to accepting any religion or cult is giving up the notion that you should expect strong evidence before you put your faith in something. Blind faith is the seed that grows into a tree of religious cult. And, while it is not always the case, belief without seeing can be very dangerous.
Most religious people today accept their religion loosely and have weeded out of it the things that are illogical. This accounts for their rejection of a lot of the Bible’s teachings (like keeping the Sabbath holy, etc.) while holding on to and relying on what they agree wit
... uh, there must be a limit ...
Most religious people today accept their religion loosely and have weeded out of it the things that are illogical. This accounts for their rejection of a lot of the Bible’s teachings (like keeping the Sabbath holy, etc.) while holding on to and relying on what they agree with through an intelligent use of interpretation. This helps religion to survive in today’s more intelligent society, one I would count you among.
-Kermit
Amber,
How nice to be this certain! It would appear you are as certain as God himself. No cance at all you are mistaken. Something you share with memebers of all the other religions of the world no doubt. I can only hope to find this truth one day as you all have.
Congradulations!
Damion, This is just a foolish argument...
"In addition to the above, we have a vast amount of art and music from authors who attributed their "gifts" (at least in some form) to their faith in the Christian God. This wealth of art and literature shows that healthy faith (by nature) includes a "thinking" element, and encourages intelligent thought and creative drive. As an aside, it also goes to show the naivety of your Santa statement -- that is, unless you think yourself brighter than St. Augustine or J.S Bach, or have something to contribute beyond them. Not to say you can't our shouldn't disagree with them, but you'll have to try a little harder than your North Pole analogy if you want anyone to take you seriously"
First of all how would you then account for the vast amounts of art, music and literature that are not created by religious people? And even if there were none it makes no sense to say that because religious people attribute their “gifts” to their faith proves the truth of their faith. This is Absurd!! And, secondly, how exactly does this show that here is a “thinking” element. Creative I will give you and it certainly does not take a sound or logical mind to create great works. In fact some of the best known are thought to be quite insane!
And I make no claim to be smarter than anyone else. But I do make the claim to capable of complex thought and as such know that the only way to make decisions about truth claims is to use this ability.
And WHAT does this have to do with my Santa argument???? I was trying to point out that if you think it would NOT be OK for a child to believe in a Santa religion because it may be false then why do you think it is OK to believe the Christian religion when it also may be false? So, I was not comparing Santa to Jesus or anything of the sort. I was merely trying to come up with a belief that would obviously be false and regarded as ridiculous.
How exactly is this naive?
-Kermit
Oh and there is a simple answer to this:
"By your logic, why should Columbus have believed in sailing to a "new world", when he couldn't be 100% certain there was anything to sail? Why should Lindberg have dared to fly across the Atlantic, when no one could tell him 100% that his plane would make it? What about the astronauts? Politicians? Someone should have told these people there is no absolute guarantee. They'd probably have responded with a healthy 'DUH!'"
That is that all these things, sailing, flying, space flight, etc. all are things that there is strong reproducible evidence for having a belief in. And none of them were done on faith alone. They are all the direct result of scientific investigation and then were not believed in until it was proven and done. There were not many people that just believed without seeing in any of these things! This is radically different than what religion asks. That is religion asks you to believe without proof. If science were like religion we would all first put our faith in the idea that man can fly and believe it without a doubt long before Wilbur and Orval were born. This demonstrates the exact flaw in believing without seeing that I am trying to make. It is foolish!
So, thank you again for making my point better than I.
OK -- My most recent comments will have an ">" in front of them, to make this a little easier to read.
"I just went to church 2 Sundays ago and it was a service all about death and dying. This was not a hard line church by any means. It was the First United Church of Christ. During the sermon the preach brought the kids up front to talk. My 12 year old and 9 did not go up as this is not our church we went there to honor their great grand mother's recent death. This was her church. The preach in no uncertain terms told the children about heaven and that fact that it is a place that while we do not know exactly what it is it, without a doubt exists and Jesus is the way to get there. There wa no comments like, "I think there is a heaven" or "if you too believe." No, it was all very factual according to this preacher. In fact my 12 year old said after the service, "you know what gets me dad? That preacher was telling those kids things that he doesn't know." I said, "Yes, you are correct but he believes it and many do. He did say some good things about death though and about how important it is to understand it is a natural thing." She agreed."
>ROTFLMAO! You are in a room full of people who share the same faith tradition, yet they are supposed to present it with an air of doubt and skepticism just because you are there? If one believes in something, obviously they will present in such a way. This is no different from almost any other institution -- institutions (by nature) espouse their own beliefs. Many schools present certain theories as "facts", when they are often later supplanted by better (or more complete) theories. If you're saying that a child can't make up their own minds because an adult stated something with an air of authority, I completely disagree. If that were the case, there would be little human progress at all. Who votes for a politician, if they waffle around on everything? Being reasonably sure of one's position is a *good* thing.
"So, I do not agree that children are taught, by any means, to question Christianity. I was told over and over in sermon after sermon how Jesus was God's son and he died for me. Not once did the church mention that this was just a belief and as such could possibly be wrong. I remember being astonished to find out that Jewish people believed Jesus had not even come yet. WOW! I thought, a whole race of people that don't believe in Jesus? How was that possible??"
>Aw come on, now that's pretty funny, either you're full of it, or were raised by wolves. We learned about world religions as early as the fourth grade, even before I knew there were faith traditions other than my own. Sounds to me like you may have been exposed to a fundamentalist-type environment. (I don't mean that as a "dis" -- just an observation.)
>A healthy faith environment loves and encourages children when they question (which they will), and accepts them either way, but doesn't have to waffl
>A healthy faith environment loves and encourages children when they question (which they will), and accepts them either way, but doesn't have to waffle around on their beliefs. An unhealthy one isolates them or treats them differently than before, or at least threatens these things. (The "tribal-type" psychology I mentioned earlier.)
"Do you know how many "faiths" would do this? Quite a few. Even my agnosticism does not prevent me from achieving what you said here. In fact I would argue that my agnosticism even better allows for it all. Especially the "use their own minds" part. Faith by definition encourages a child to not use their own mind, rather, as the Bible says, "Blessed is he who believes but has not seen." In other words belief is THE most important ingredient not thinking or rationalization. Believe first, think second it would seem to me."
>Again, I am not presenting my faith to the exclusion of others, or stating that non-Christian children can't have certain moral values. Also, you seem to contradict yourself here -- your Agnosticism does not require 100% certainty, yet we are obligated to prove our faith with 100% assurance... what a convenient position for you! ;)
>Also, you are marginalizing again -- just because the Bible mentions the existence of a risk element within faith, does not mean that therefore it is "mostly" not thinking. Your premise is flawed. Agnosticism is also a type of faith, and therefore you cannot be 100% certain that your position is the most correct, either. Make sure to tell the kiddies!
"And how are you not "reliant upon 100% reassurance before attempting anything in life" if you have faith? Isn't that what faith is all about in religion? Namely that, as long as you have faith, you are reassured that everything you do will be OK. Faith is the tool that gives you 100% reassurance before you do anything and therefore because of this faith all will be OK. And it is only seen in faith that a person claims 100% truth. I myself would never make a 100% claim as I readily admit that there is a level of improbability in every thing I have faith in."
>No -- this is not what faith is, even the Bible verse you quoted above alludes to the correct understanding. I suggest you refer to Paul Tillich's "Dynamics of Faith" for a good theological primer. I provided many examples above regarding the risk element of faith, and areas where faith was necessary even within a non-religious context.
"And while it is true that Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, Waco, etc. are extreme cases of faith gone bad, I would venture that each and every one of those cults started because a child was told it is OK to believe without seeing."
>I don't think so, 'cause you could make the same argument for teaching a kid to believe in Santa. (In fact, if we follow this logic further, we'd have to conclude that kids who were taught to believe in Santa were MORE likely to become cult leaders, since the exis
>I don't think so, 'cause you could make the same argument for teaching a kid to believe in Santa. (In fact, if we follow this logic further, we'd have to conclude that kids who were taught to believe in Santa were MORE likely to become cult leaders, since the existence of Jesus is provable, while that of Santa is not.) Jim Jones and David Koresh were drug addicts with severe psychological disorders. To reiterate, no one is advocating absolute "blind faith" here, or even "mostly" blind faith. A faith that contradicts sound logic/science/history is not healthy.
"Most religious people today accept their religion loosely and have weeded out of it the things that are illogical. This accounts for their rejection of a lot of the Bible's teachings (like keeping the Sabbath holy, etc.) while holding on to and relying on what they agree with through an intelligent use of interpretation. This helps religion to survive in today's more intelligent society,"
>Big problem here. The majority of Christians on this planet are either Catholic or Orthodox, and those beliefs and practices can be shown to have existed during the earliest centuries of the Church, with no core ideas having been removed. I'm not sure what's meant by keeping the Sabbath holy -- traditional understanding of that is to take a day to reflect on God and family, and maybe do something you find personally edifying (like waxing the car, LOL).
"one I would count you among."
>Cheers, mate! :-) Likewise, I appreciate your perspective.
"Damion, This is just a foolish argument...
"In addition to the above, we have a vast amount of art and music from authors who attributed their "gifts" (at least in some form) to their faith in the Christian God. This wealth of art and literature shows that healthy faith (by nature) includes a "thinking" element, and encourages intelligent thought and creative drive. As an aside, it also goes to show the naivety of your Santa statement -- that is, unless you think yourself brighter than St. Augustine or J.S Bach, or have something to contribute beyond them. Not to say you can't our shouldn't disagree with them, but you'll have to try a little harder than your North Pole analogy if you want anyone to take you seriously"
First of all how would you then account for the vast amounts of art, music and literature that are not created by religious people? And even if there were none it makes no sense to say that because religious people attribute their "gifts" to their faith proves the truth of their faith. This is Absurd!! And, secondly, how exactly does this show that here is a "thinking" element. Creative I will give you and it certainly does not take a sound or logical mind to create great works. In fact some of the best known are thought to be quite insane!"
>Nowhere did I state that non-believers don't make good artists or thinkers. (Some of my favorites were rather atheistic!) Only that many great artists and thi
>Nowhere did I state that non-believers don't make good artists or thinkers. (Some of my favorites were rather atheistic!) Only that many great artists and thinkers were staunch believers, the majority of them NOT insane, BTW. Therefore, you cannot state that logic and intelligence are exclusive to faith in a Creator. Also, creativity and intelligence usually *do* go together. See J.S. Bach for a sound example. (In fact, we've only recently discovered that he encoded an entire Latin mass within the music of his Chaconne. Lots of intelligence + religion when it comes to famous musicians, actually.)
" And, secondly, how exactly does this show that here is a "thinking" element. "
>Uh, ever hear of theology? Read Amber's latest blog posts? See above.
"And WHAT does this have to do with my Santa argument???? I was trying to point out that if you think it would NOT be OK for a child to believe in a Santa religion because it may be false then why do you think it is OK to believe the Christian religion when it also may be false?"
>Christianity is about 1000% more provable than Santa, that is why your argument doesn't work, and is naive. There is a historical record, eyewitness accounts, and a solid theology. Many things we teach our kids we can't be certain about, but we don't tell them that mommy might die in an accident on the way to work just because it "might" happen. :p
"I was merely trying to come up with a belief that would obviously be false and regarded as ridiculous."
>Exactly why most Christians would find it a derogatory comparison, and not worth responding to.
"Oh and there is a simple answer to this:
"By your logic, why should Columbus have believed in sailing to a "new world", when he couldn't be 100% certain there was anything to sail? Why should Lindberg have dared to fly across the Atlantic, when no one could tell him 100% that his plane would make it? What about the astronauts? Politicians? Someone should have told these people there is no absolute guarantee. They'd probably have responded with a healthy 'DUH!'"
That is that all these things, sailing, flying, space flight, etc. all are things that there is strong reproducible evidence for having a belief in."
>Only to greater or lesser degrees, not with absolute assurance. (Some endeavors require more risk than others.) All of the examples I listed required an act of faith on the part of the "believer" (so-to-speak), though there was good empirical data to back up their beliefs. The tachyon is a theoretical particle not shown to exist, according to your logic we should forget about it because it can't be 100% proven yet. (Due to the nature of how our sense-apparatus and perception work, there are some things that can probably never be "known" anyhow.)
>Anyway, you need to make up your mind. First you stated why believe if there's no absolute certainty, now you seem to say that it isn't required, at least with what you
>Anyway, you need to make up your mind. First you stated why believe if there's no absolute certainty, now you seem to say that certainty isn't required, at least with what you believe, or in the case of science, or maybe only specific "degrees" of certainty are valid. Which is it?
"here were not many people that just believed without seeing in any of these things! This is radically different than what religion asks."
>I disagree. The Bible (and other extraneous texts) mention thousands of witnesses to the miracles of Jesus and his Apostles. People were willing to be crucified (even upside down) rather than disavow what they had witnessed. Some of the most brilliant minds throughout history also happened to be religious. This doesn't in itself make the case for Christianity (or any other religion, and nowhere did I state the opposite), but my point still stands that it can't be refuted with simplistic Santa analogies, nor can you state that it is something that requires "mostly" blind faith, because it does not.
>One more thing: In reference to "faith alone", that is a specific theological (soteriological) concept within Christianity that Catholics and Orthodox do not subscribe to.
Regards,
Damion,
You said:
"ROTFLMAO! You are in a room full of people who share the same faith tradition, yet they are supposed to present it with an air of doubt and skepticism just because you are there? If one believes in something, obviously they will present in such a way. This is no different from almost any other institution -- institutions (by nature) espouse their own beliefs. Many schools present certain theories as "facts", when they are often later supplanted by better (or more complete) theories. If you're saying that a child can't make up their own minds because an adult stated something with an air of authority, I completely disagree. If that were the case, there would be little human progress at all. Who votes for a politician, if they waffle around on everything? Being reasonably sure of one's position is a *good* thing."
I was referring to this quote by you, “As far as we know no one is stating anything to kids as ‘fact’.”
An I would strongly disagree with you that “Many schools present certain theories as ‘facts’” Why else would you use the term “theory??” You, yourself were obviously taught about theories and how to question and prove / disprove them thanks to schooling. This is starkly differently than what is taught in Sunday School! I do understand that some theories are SO well proven that they do seem like fact. The Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution both have mounds of evidence so they seem close to fact. This is why you feel as though they are taught this way. But the major thing you are taught in school is how to test the theory and, more importantly, prove or disprove it. You are taught to question it, investigate it and to try to come up with other theories. This is again vastly different than Sunday School where you are taught to accept it and then come up with interpretations of the Bible and history to support it. It is not called Religion Theory or The Christian Theory. It is called ‘Truth’ and ‘The Way,’ etc.
Now again you will see the relevance of my Santa Claus analogy. You said, “If you're saying that a child can't make up their own minds because an adult stated something with an air of authority, I completely disagree.”
Is it NOT the case that young children pretty much DO believe anything an adult tells them? Especially a parent? Are we not able to keep up the Santa Claus lie well into a child’s life??? And it is only because we or others tell them that they figure it out. Yes, it is no doubt children do eventually make up their mind about a lot of things and Santa is an easy one to scientifically test. But it is a fact that religious adults are most of the time a result of religious parents. And it is no mystery why Buddhist children grow up to be Buddhist adults and Christian children grow up to be Christian adults, etc. The fact is that what adults tell children has a profound affect on what that child believes and how they interpret the world around
...
The fact is that what adults tell children has a profound affect on what that child believes and how they interpret the world around them as an adult. Yes, a child can make up their own mind but, depending on the level of teaching they had as a child, it can be very difficult and takes time.
So, look at the approach I take with my children and tell me who will be better able to “make up their own mind.” Your child who is told “Jesus IS the son of God?” Or mine that is told, “Some people have a Theory that Jesus is the son of God?” If you are arguing that it is good for a child to make up their own mind then tell how your approach is better?
-Kermit I will get to your other points soon.
Kermit,
I've already explained the difference between a healthy faith environment, and one that does not allow dissenting thought or exposure to other beliefs. I'm going to refrain from doing such again, as it seems my points have been left unanswered. Also, I am not here to argue for any organization which does the opposite. (It's a simple fact that some theories are taught as facts, this has nothing to do with the definition of "theory".) My kids will be learning about Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas in their Sunday classes, will be quite aware of why they believe what they do (should they choose to accept it) and will be well equipped to make up their own minds.
At every Catholic and Orthodox mass, we recite a creed at some point:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
We raise our children in a faith environment which heavily emphasizes the "belief" aspect. Belief implies its opposite, which means that the possibility of rejection is allowed. No one is forced to accept anything. No one is taught to believe without reason. The type of hard-line religion you keep alluding to here is not representative of mine, nor I suspect the majority.
"I will get to your other points soon."
Excellent! I am looking forward to it. :-)
Something I forgot to address:
So, look at the approach I take with my children and tell me who will be better able to “make up their own mind.” Your child who is told “Jesus IS the son of God?” Or mine that is told, “Some people have a Theory that Jesus is the son of God?” If you are arguing that it is good for a child to make up their own mind then tell how your approach is better?"
As I see it, your approach is not superior to mine, since your viewpoint is
A: A type of faith, just like mine, and according to your own self, "we can't know which faith is really right or wrong"
B: My kids will still be taught about other religions, philosophy/theology, music, probably a little Latin here and there, *and* free to choose their own path, yet raised in a healthy faith environment (faith being a necessary element to the human psyche)
C: "The only thing we can know is that we can't know", or constant waffling, is not a good foundation for a child's mind, sorry
I never said my approach was superior just more open minded. Looks like you think it is superior to have an open mind.
I would not say that my viewpoint is a type of faith just like yours. If I were Jewish or Muslim or Hindu then yes, it would be. The main difference is with my viewpoint there is nothing that I know 100% where as with yours, or other religious people, you say you do know 100% that your religion is true. Or as Amber said above, “Yes, I am... without one single doubt.” This reliance on faith or knowledge combined with faith to reach a “full knowledge” or “truth” is something that my POV does not share with any religious POV. In fact my POV loudly proclaims it does not know anything this strongly. Where as most religions claim they do know because of some vague kind of personal faith / knowledge that gives them 100% proof. What this is and how you get to such high levels of assurance that it is true is beyond me and is the reason I am questioning you. So, no my POV is not a “faith just like yours.” If it were we would not be having this conversation.
So, it is my POV that my child, being brought up in an environment where she is taught many things but never told that these things are 100% true, will grow up with a more open mind than one that is taught that one religion, or parts of it are true. The fact that your kids will be raised in “a healthy faith environment” means they will be disproportionately taught about Christianity and therefore come to believe in it easier than any other religion. Therefore they would be less open-minded than mine. Yes, I believe you will tell them about other religions, philosophy/theology, music, probably a little Latin here and there but your belief in a God, Christ and Heaven the Bible will be what they are taught is closer to the truth than these other things. Your belief in this “full knowledge” gained through faith will unfairly bias your child away from open-minded-ness. My non-belief in this will allow my child to look at all religions openly and therefore they will be better equipped to make up their own mind.
How is "The only thing we can know is that we can't know" a constant waffle?? Sounds quite solid if you see it through consistently! And, I would argue is a very good foundation to raise a child on as you have shown by displaying your belief that having an open mind is “superior.”
-Kermit
Damion,
You said, "It's a simple fact that some theories are taught as facts."
What theories would these be?
I don't think any mainstream faith claims to have 100% knowledge of God, and that's completely different from a personal conviction that one is on the correct path, spiritually.
You seem to be 100% certain that nothing can be known with 100% certainty, that all religions teach the same thing, and therefore it's correct to be Agnostic. That's definitely some type of faith, and unfortunately you can't escape the "biased" element in raising kids around that mindset, either.
Children will always be subject to "biases", but we don't say that raising a kid to speak English or eat hot dogs "biases" them against other languages and cultures.
I argue that faith and the thirst for God are simply aspects of being human, and raising children in a healthy faith environment which allows them to explore these natural tendencies in a loving, open minded atmosphere is a positive thing.
I'd also like to clarify something here:
I don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint on raising kids, and for the most part, I myself wasn't raised in a particular faith tradition, and in many ways it was beneficial. It's definitely most important to raise children in a loving environment (rather than one of fear and coercion as with some extremist/cult-like groups), whether it's Christian/Muslim/Atheistic/etc.
Alright, here we go… Sorry it got so long!
I would argue that most mainstream faiths do indeed claim to have 100% knowledge of God and do not make the distinction you mention. Or at least are not very clear or diligent about making the distinction. But I think I understand what you are saying. That is that there is an underlying basis of faith in any belief system. Many religions acknowledge of the need for faith for the explicit reason that there is not 100% knowledge that what they believe is true. In other words, what would we need faith for if we were 100% positive? This 100% knowledge through faith, personal or otherwise, is a big problem to me.
It is my opinion that religion over-looks this problem and quickly moves on to a position of what appears to be great certainty about an unknown. Furthermore it goes to great lengths to affirm the “truth” of what is merely a belief. It is my opinion that this should never be done. To take what is an unknown and turn it into a “known” personal or otherwise is, in my opinion, a mistake. It is exactly this use of faith to get to 100% personal truth that I think is the problem. Especially when more than one person does it and then children are taught it and massive groups all with each individuals claiming to have personal knowledge it becomes very hard, especially for children, to distinguish belief from truth or 100% knowledge. Just look at how often the word truth is used in Christianity. Suddenly a child is surrounded by all these people, their family, each and every one a believer and they are told, “Jesus is truth, the only way! Don’t worry we all have had doubts too and we still believe, that is part of it! A wonderful part of it! You may begin to question, that is good. Read the Bible more. God will speak to you through your doubt. He will show you even though your doubts are strong, your faith must be stronger. The devil makes you doubt. Yes, do not listen, believe! This is truth! Learn how to believe without seeing. Learn to trust in the truth of the lord no matter what. Then exalt and praise the lord for helping you see the light! And put your fears and questions away for you now know the lord and you will live forever! Amen!”
Now don’t get me wrong Damion, I am not saying everyone, especially you, tell a child exactly what I have stated above. But when you go to church next time notice what the preacher says and how he / she says it. Notice the prayers and the songs and the “witnessing” that may occur. You may be a thinker and very open minded but, I would venture, the service you attend does not spend much time addressing the major problem that exists if Christ turns out to be a false prophet. And it does not spend much time trying to prove God exists or that this God is the one Christ speaks of. For your belief system uses something that requires no proof. Faith is the key in Christianity. Faith, personal or otherwise is how you cross the bridge from “I d
...Faith, personal or otherwise is how you cross the bridge from “I don’t know” to “I know.”
And while you are correct that I “seem to be 100% certain that nothing can be known with 100% certainty, that all religions teach the same thing, and therefore it's correct to be Agnostic.” I still acknowledge that I am not 100% certain and only “seem” to be. I do not even hold a personal belief of such certainty. And that is the difference between what I believe and what you believe. You have the belief in the concept of 100% personal knowledge of something and I do not. If you take away faith are you are just like me?
You said,
“Children will always be subject to "biases", but we don't say that raising a kid to speak English or eat hot dogs "biases" them against other languages and cultures”
Yes, my children are subject to my thinking and therefore will be biased. I realize that. I am arguing that my biases are better for a child if it is agreed that having an open mind is important. And you make my point for me once again by using the language analogy. Language does not have, as part of teaching it, statements about it being the “true” language or lessons about how other languages should not be learned. Religion does.
And then you said,
“I argue that faith and the thirst for God are simply aspects of being human, and raising children in a healthy faith environment which allows them to explore these natural tendencies in a loving, open minded atmosphere is a positive thing.”
I argue that faith and wondering about why we are here are simply aspects of being human and that raising children in any faith environment where 100% knowledge based on personal faith is believed in does not allow them to explore these natural tendencies in a truly open minded atmosphere and therefore is a negative thing.
You are correct in that I too use faith. I know I sound like I think I don’t. It is all about what levels of faith are appropriate logically. In other words I take it on faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow because I have lots of strong reasons to believe this. I do not have 100% knowledge, personal or otherwise, that it will. I take it on faith that you exists but do not have 100% personal knowledge of it. I never use faith to get to 100% knowledge. I am never “without one single doubt” of anything as Amber is.
The fact that we can go on and on about whether God exists tells me it is by no means as sure as the Sun will rise tomorrow. And therefore I have little faith in God’s existence. Religion is even weaker than this because it depends on God’s existence.
To me you have taken bits and pieces of information and tied together a reason for having faith in Christianity. Together they look quite strong and convincing especially when you take into account the millions of others that believe. But each piece of information has flaws. As indeed any piece of information does. In fact all pieces of information do.
To me you have taken bits and pieces of information and tied together a reason for having faith in Christianity. Together they look quite strong and convincing especially when you take into account the millions of others that believe. But each piece of information has flaws. As indeed any piece of information does. In fact all pieces of information do. This is what makes it impossible and absurd for Amber to say she is “without one single doubt.” I do not want to say that someone cannot have a lot of good reasons for thinking something like the Sun will rise. Just that God and more likely religions are no where nearly close enough to being beliefs that anyone should be 100% personally or otherwise sure of. It would seem to me to be a 50/50 proposition that God exists and, given that there are at least 100 religions in the world, a 1% possibility that Christianity is the right religion.
Sorry everyone! 1% is all I am giving it! ;-)
-Kermit
I would argue that most mainstream faiths do indeed claim to have 100% knowledge of God and do not make the distinction you mention. Or at least are not very clear or diligent about making the distinction.
I highly suggest a theology class then, because this is dead wrong. Mainstream western religions don't teach this. (F.e, the Bible teaches that we are to be hopeful of our salvation, and definitely not 100% assured.)
But I think I understand what you are saying. That is that there is an underlying basis of faith in any belief system. Many religions acknowledge of the need for faith for the explicit reason that there is not 100% knowledge that what they believe is true.
As I see it your definition of faith is flawed, because faith isn't blind belief without reason. Also, there are aspects of our being that cannot be fulfilled by logic/science/empirical data/etc. (See below.)
In other words, what would we need faith for if we were 100% positive?
In a sense, yes. Otherwise faith would be mere belief (I believe that 2+2=4, yet I don't have faith that 2+2=4), and there would be no "free will" aspect to choosing God.
This 100% knowledge through faith, personal or otherwise, is a big problem to me.
Understandable, especially if your chosen god was Santa. Then yes, there would be a big problem.
It is my opinion that religion over-looks this problem and quickly moves on to a position of what appears to be great certainty about an unknown. Furthermore it goes to great lengths to affirm the “truth” of what is merely a belief. It is my opinion that this should never be done. To take what is an unknown and turn it into a “known” personal or otherwise is, in my opinion, a mistake.
Why do you keep insisting that there's no credible evidence whatsoever? Or great uncertainty? Would you allow yourself to be brutally murdered because of some great uncertainty? Or devote your life's genius to a great uncertainty? Seems to me it's possible to be more certain that you claim.
It is exactly this use of faith to get to 100% personal truth that I think is the problem. Especially when more than one person does it and then children are taught it and massive groups all with each individuals claiming to have personal knowledge it becomes very hard, especially for children, to distinguish belief from truth or 100% knowledge. Just look at how often the word truth is used in Christianity. Suddenly a child is surrounded by all these people, their family, each and every one a believer and they are told, “Jesus is truth, the only way! Don’t worry we all have had doubts too and we still believe, that is part of it! A wonderful part of it! You may begin to question, that is good. Read the Bible more. God will speak to you through your doubt. He will show you even though your doubts are strong, your faith must be stronger. The devil makes you doubt. Yes, do not listen, believe! This is truth! Learn how to believe without seeing. Learn to trust in the truth of the lord no matter what. Then exalt and praise the lord for helping you see the light! And put your fears and questions away for you now know the lord and you will live forever! Amen!”
Insisting on this "blind faith" bit (which I've addressed several times) won't make it real, nor will marginalizing all religions into your example above. Ironically enough, the Bible verse you quoted to support this "mostly blind faith" idea of yours was where Jesus is reported to have appeared to an Apostle after his Crucifixion! How's that for blind faith?
Now don’t get me wrong Damion, I am not saying everyone, especially you, tell a child exactly what I have stated above.
Then why repeat the extremist example again, when I've already agreed (as would most Christians) that that would be wrong?
I have stated above. But when you go to church next time notice what the preacher says and how he / she says it. Notice the prayers and the songs and the “witnessing” that may occur. You may be a thinker and very open minded but, I would venture, the service you attend does not spend much time addressing the major problem that exists if Christ turns out to be a false prophet. And it does not spend much time trying to prove God exists or that this God is the one Christ speaks of. For your belief system uses something that requires no proof. Faith is the key in Christianity. Faith, personal or otherwise is how you cross the bridge from “I don’t know” to “I know.”
We've already covered this, too. See my posting of the Creed and what the term "belief" implies. "Requires no proof" has also been discussed. Not requiring 100% proof is not the same as requiring zero proof. Also, there's a wealth of Christian theology out there that spends a good deal of time addressing all kinds of questions and possibilities.
Yes, my children are subject to my thinking and therefore will be biased. I realize that. I am arguing that my biases are better for a child if it is agreed that having an open mind is important. And you make my point for me once again by using the language analogy. Language does not have, as part of teaching it, statements about it being the “true” language or lessons about how other languages should not be learned. Religion does.
Made your point for you? Hardly! Religion, like language, is evident everywhere. They both (attempt to) satisfy something innate. Only extremist religions teach to the exclusion of other religions, and once again, we're not arguing for that (at least I'm not).
I argue that faith and wondering about why we are here are simply aspects of being human and that raising children in any faith environment where 100% knowledge based on personal faith is believed in does not allow them to explore these natural tendencies in a truly open minded atmosphere and therefore is a negative thing.
I agree with the first part of this sentence -- I won't yet claim that you've made my point for me, though. ;) The second part I disagree for reasons already mentioned. I see how you could argue that one position is more or less positive, but I don't see how you arrived at a healthy faith environment being a negative thing. Admitting that your beliefs include an element of faith, this would place your kids in a similar boat.
The fact that we can go on and on about whether God exists tells me it is by no means as sure as the Sun will rise tomorrow. And therefore I have little faith in God’s existence. Religion is even weaker than this because it depends on God’s existence.
Yes, but try proving to a blind man that the sun exists, let alone that it will "rise" tomorrow. The idea that something other than himself is responsible for his existence might even make a more convincing argument. ;)
The fact that most people practice some kind of religion shows it isn't weak, but necessary. Personally, I have little faith in a mindset that promises only negation.
To me you have taken bits and pieces of information and tied together a reason for having faith in Christianity. Together they look quite strong and convincing especially when you take into account the millions of others that believe. But each piece of information has flaws. As indeed any piece of information does. In fact all pieces of information do. This is what makes it impossible and absurd for Amber to say she is “without one single doubt.”
I can't speak for Amber, but I'd like to reiterate the difference between having moments, or periods in one's life of personal assurance, and claiming 100% knowledge of God. The second is pretty much a philosophical issue and can't really be argued for, unless (maybe?) we hold a certain existential-type viewpoint.
I do not want to say that someone cannot have a lot of good reasons for thinking something like the Sun will rise. Just that God and more likely religions are no where nearly close enough to being beliefs that anyone should be 100% personally or otherwise sure of. It would seem to me to be a 50/50 proposition that God exists and, given that there are at least 100 religions in the world, a 1% possibility that Christianity is the right religion.
Sorry everyone! 1% is all I am giving it!
Yeah, problem is it's a lot more than 1% if you figure that number 1, majority of the world are religious, and 2, majority of those are Christians. :)
Kermit, part of the issue here is that you are assuming religion should fulfill the same role, or be absolutely subject to the same rules and requirements we have in place for analyzing scientific/empirical data. There are simply parts of us which cannot be strictly fulfilled by science or empirical data. It's like asking for the "empirical 100% proof" of why I might go to a party and drink a beer. Or asking "where's the logic" when one has a moving experience looking at a Picasso. There are aspects of man's being where he attempts to grasp something beyond himself, and beyond normal sense faculty. It is evident that, in many of these attempts (especially those considering the nature of our being), religion (particularly the symbolic aspects) expresses these notions and aids us best in this regard. However, that's not to say there shouldn't be logical/scientific/empirical elements to one's faith, as I have shown. (To quote myself from the other thread, "It's this experience of "God" on every level of being that can make it a formidable thing for some NOT to accept, irrational even.")
(So -- As with comparing scientific theories, we can also examine various religions and attempt to determine which one best lives up to its claims. Unfortunately though I don't have the time (or desire) for that argument, maybe sometime after New Year's... LOL.)
Regards,
Something else just occurred to me:
Notice the prayers and the songs and the “witnessing” that may occur.
Kermit, you really should check out a traditional Catholic or Orthodox Mass one of these days. There's no "witnessing" going on, and no one getting in your face asking about how "you and Jesus are doin'".
Years ago (before my conversion) I stumbled upon a Serbian Orthodox service, and was quite moved by the humble reverence the participants exhibited towards the Object of their faith. Historic Christianity acknowledges that we cannot know everything, that there's a strong element of hope at times, and that it's simply by God's grace that we can begin to apprehend Him at all. You won't go to a traditional Catholic mass and have some "preacher" yammering about saying a prayer to have 100% assurance of God and Heaven. The Bible never declares that, anyway.
Cheers,
Hey Damion,
Love your comments!
I do speak often in regards to the fundamentalist Christian religions and do realize that the Catholic service is much more reverent than and by no means as lively as those others. Some would call it "boring" in comparison and many are turned off by the apparent coldness of it, I can see their point. However, Catholicism is one of the least tolerant of the Christian religions. Not allowing women as priests and not accepting of the homosexual life style or contraception etc. For a religion that “acknowledges that we cannot know everything” it seems to be 100% certain about how we should live our lives. Are you saying it professes such things on the basis of being reasonably sure of them not 100% sure? Or are you saying it acknowledges it can know some things but not “everything?” In other words there are things it does “know?”
Also, this reverence, to me, is a scary thing. To go to such lengths to adore something that is SO debatably true makes the situation worse, IMO. By this I mean worse because it gives people more false reasons for thinking their religion is true. We are emotional beings. We easily imagine things that are not there and attribute these emotions and feelings to things that may not exist at all. It is our nature to do so. It helps us survive by putting intention behind things that happen. This allows us to better understand why it happened. But sometimes there is no intention as is the case with the weather. That tornado that destroyed my house was not an “Act of God.” But our minds put intention behind it because often our survival depends on it. A second attack from a person is best prevented by understanding the intention behind the first attack. It is people and their intentions that we have to deal with constantly and so it is natural for us to try to put intention behind everything we experience. Religion exploits this natural tendency in us by providing intention behind our experiences and emotions, things that there may be no intentions behind.
So, this reverence, i.e. “profound adoring, awed respect” in religious ritual is a fascinating, beautiful and can be a very dangerous thing. You were obviously affected by it. I, myself have felt the same at such acts of religious ritual. To you it is further proof of the religion you follow. To me it is only proof of our natural tendency to put intention behind the unintentional. The reverence displayed in the service re-enforces your belief by using the emotion you feel to substantiate it’s claim that God exists and that Jesus is his son. It is evident that you have bought into this way of thinking because you brought up great works of art music and literature from religious people as proof. You have taken your experience of beauty, art and religious ceremony and the emotions they cause in you and interpreted them, because you are naturally seeking intention, as intended by God and Christianity has exploited this acceptance in you to get you to believe and follow it.
And this brings me to what you said here,
“Kermit, part of the issue here is that you are assuming religion should fulfill the same role, or be absolutely subject to the same rules and requirements we have in place for analyzing scientific/empirical data.”
I guess I would agree with you. I do assume this.
“There are simply parts of us which cannot be strictly fulfilled by science or empirical data. It's like asking for the "empirical 100% proof" of why I might go to a party and drink a beer. Or asking "where's the logic" when one has a moving experience looking at a Picasso.”
Ha! But you beg the question. That is why does one go to a party to drink beer? And what is the logic behind a moving experience that occurs while looking at a painting? Science indeed is attempting to and has made great strides in understanding just the emotions you speak of. From a layman’s perspective it is easy to come up logic behind feeling moved by a painting. Does it relate to something you remember? Is the painting of something you would not observe in the real world? Does it appear to defy gravity for example? It is not a given that there are “parts of us which cannot be strictly fulfilled by science or empirical data.” Yes, there are parts we do not fully understand but this does not make them forever so.
And this you said,
“There are aspects of man's being where he attempts to grasp something beyond himself, and beyond normal sense faculty. It is evident that, in many of these attempts (especially those considering the nature of our being), religion (particularly the symbolic aspects) expresses these notions and aids us best in this regard.”
I would argue that religion aides us terribly in this regard! It takes these attempts to grasp what we don’t know and instead of leaving them as they are, namely unknown, it tells you what and why they are and then uses your acceptance of it to manipulate you into living by all the rules it has created. And then by doing so pits group against group causing much harm in our society. All this because you are willing to accept it’s conclusions about your unexplained experiences.
"It's this experience of "God" on every level of being that can make it a formidable thing for some NOT to accept, irrational even.”
I would say it is this experience that you have attributed to a “God” that you have given up on trying to understand scientifically that makes it hard for you to understand how irrational your belief is. As a result the emotions you felt from the “Serbian Orthodox” services are not attempted to be understood in scientific terms and instead religion has eagerly stepped in. This happened hundreds of years ago with solar eclipses. People did not understand them and thought they were “God’s doing.” Science came along and explained them and they are no longer misunderstood and attributed to God. Today that same thing occurs only this time it is more complex. It is emotions and feelings we do not understand and end up attributing to God. I would argue that just because something is not explainable through science does not make it forever unexplainable and certainly not something to attribute to any God. It is simply an unknown and should remain as such. To do other wise hinders our ability to study it. Indeed if people had accepted the religious view that eclipses were “Gods doing” and therefore did not question this view and never looked into it they would never have found out the truth.
Kermit
I do speak often in regards to the fundamentalist Christian religions and do realize that the Catholic service is much more reverent than and by no means as lively as those others. Some would call it "boring" in comparison and many are turned off by the apparent coldness of it, I can see their point.
Simply a matter of perspective. Some prefer an introspective, deeper reflection upon their faith as opposed to rock guitars and the "witnessing" you referred to, or consider a structured and nuanced approach more edifying.
However, it does sound to me like your analysis is based on what someone else (who's viewpoint you were already predisposed towards blindly accepting) said about it though, rather than your own personal experience. And I'm supposed to be the closed-minded Christian over here. Sheesh.
Anyway, that (still) doesn't answer anything I said in refutation of your claim that Church services teach nothing more than unproven nonsense as 100% fact, what the action of "believing" entails, and etc.
However, Catholicism is one of the least tolerant of the Christian religions.
And how, pray tell, do you arrive at this conclusion?
Not allowing women as priests and not accepting of the homosexual life style or contraception etc. For a religion that “acknowledges that we cannot know everything” it seems to be 100% certain about how we should live our lives.
Every organization has its rules and doctrines, your own faith must (at minimum) have some kind of axiom to base its conclusions upon. So what you're really saying here is "I don't like the rules of the Catholic Church", and not "rules in themselves are bad", right?
Are you saying it professes such things on the basis of being reasonably sure of them not 100% sure? Or are you saying it acknowledges it can know some things but not “everything?” In other words there are things it does “know?”
Again, some would argue that we can't have knowledge in an absolute sense (kind of a silly philosophical circle IMHO), at the same time we have to acknowledge some rules and framework for interpreting things, otherwise science, logic, faith, religion, and this very discussion would be pointless.
Also, this reverence, to me, is a scary thing.
Your obvious biases, unproven assumptions and simply wrong claims are equally scary from my perspective.
By this I mean worse because it gives people more false reasons for thinking their religion is true.
Another unproven assumption.
We are emotional beings.
True.
We easily imagine things that are not there and attribute these emotions and feelings to things that may not exist at all. It is our nature to do so.
I disagree, and this is yet another unproven assumption that God "isn't there", couldn't be there, or that we can't be reasonably sure of God's existence.
It helps us survive by putting intention behind things that happen. This allows us to better understand why it happened. But sometimes there is no intention as is the case with the weather. That tornado that destroyed my house was not an “Act of God.”
I argue the opposite, that things like science, philosophy, theology, etc are proof that, ultimately, man isn't satisfied with simplistic, nonsensical explanations for these "intentions" as you call them, otherwise we'd still be living in the stone age. Just because you think the Christian (or theistic in general) claims rest upon nothing but blind faith won't make it true (an absurdity), no matter how many ways you try to say it.
But our minds put intention behind it because often our survival depends on it. A second attack from a person is best prevented by understanding the intention behind the first attack. It is people and their intentions that we have to deal with constantly and so it is natural for us to try to put intention behind everything we experience.
Huh?
Religion exploits this natural tendency in us by providing intention behind our experiences and emotions, things that there may be no intentions behind.
It's as if "religion" came along from nowhere (fell from the sky maybe, or perhaps Santa?), and imposed its evil will on unsuspecting man. Or, it's simply an outgrowth of man's natural capacity for faith and the desire to know who created him. I won't bother telling you which one is the more "academically accepted" idea.
So, this reverence, i.e. “profound adoring, awed respect” in religious ritual is a fascinating, beautiful and can be a very dangerous thing.
It can be dangerous in the extremist examples we've already been through a billion times -- once again this is simply marginalizing and shows a ridiculously biased viewpoint of normal religion.
You were obviously affected by it. I, myself have felt the same at such acts of religious ritual.
It's a pretty big (arrogant?) thing to claim to know what another has felt or experienced on a spiritual level.
To you it is further proof of the religion you follow.
At times, however I am largely confident in my position and not necessarily begging for bits of "proof". I just accept these experiences as gifts and am generally thankful for them. That isn't to say I'm not open to being dissuaded from my position! :-D
To me it is only proof of our natural tendency to put intention behind the unintentional.
Except you haven't proven that man's nature is ultimately to put irrational, nonsensical intention behind the unintentional. (Really hope you don't try arguing that one.)
Actually, you'd probably first have to show how one would determine what's intentional and what isn't, i.e, just because science can't prove an intention doesn't preclude the possibility of one.
The reverence displayed in the service r
The reverence displayed in the service re-enforces your belief by using the emotion you feel to substantiate it's claim that God exists and that Jesus is his son.
Reverence of something on its own is hardly proof of anything. Nor emotion... I love my family, though I don't worship them. Maybe it's more complicated than that? Hmm.
It is evident that you have bought into this way of thinking because you brought up great works of art music and literature from religious people as proof. You have taken your experience of beauty, art and religious ceremony and the emotions they cause in you and interpreted them, because you are naturally seeking intention, as intended by God and Christianity has exploited this acceptance in you to get you to believe and follow it.
Kermit doesn't want to acknowledge that religion is a reflection of an inherent property within man, or that it expresses complex ontological aspects, but would rather hold that it's some autonomous entity which "tricks" people into following (or "buying into") it. Fascinating.
Earlier I said:
“There are simply parts of us which cannot be strictly fulfilled by science or empirical data. It's like asking for the "empirical 100% proof" of why I might go to a party and drink a beer. Or asking "where's the logic" when one has a moving experience looking at a Picasso.”
Kermit replied:
Ha! But you beg the question. That is why does one go to a party to drink beer? And what is the logic behind a moving experience that occurs while looking at a painting? Science indeed is attempting to and has made great strides in understanding just the emotions you speak of. From a layman’s perspective it is easy to come up logic behind feeling moved by a painting. Does it relate to something you remember? Is the painting of something you would not observe in the real world? Does it appear to defy gravity for example? It is not a given that there are “parts of us which cannot be strictly fulfilled by science or empirical data.” Yes, there are parts we do not fully understand but this does not make them forever so.
You've pretty much missed the point though, which is that science can't fulfill the same role as music, art, faith, etc when it comes to satisfying an intrinsic need within man. (Nor should it.)
Earlier I said:
“There are aspects of man's being where he attempts to grasp something beyond himself, and beyond normal sense faculty. It is evident that, in many of these attempts (especially those considering the nature of our being), religion (particularly the symbolic aspects) expresses these notions and aids us best in this regard.”
Kermit replied:
I would argue that religion aides us terribly in this regard! It takes these attempts to grasp what we don’t know and instead of leaving them as they are, namely unknown, it tells you what and why they are and then uses your acceptance of it to manipulate you into living by all the rules it has created. And then by doing so pits group against group causing much harm in our society. All this because you are willing to accept it’s conclusions about your unexplained experiences.
This is more religion being an autonomous entity BS, possible negation of rules in themselves as being necessary, and not granting that religion more adequately expresses and satisfies qualities of our being which cannot be satisfied by other means, like empiricism. (This is evident, BTW.)
Earlier I said:
"It's this experience of "God" on every level of being that can make it a formidable thing for some NOT to accept, irrational even.”
Kermit replied:
I would say it is this experience that you have attributed to a “God” that you have given up on trying to understand scientifically that makes it hard for you to understand how irrational your belief is.
Yet again, unproven, biased assumptions. The scientific data (we talked about some of it in another thread) was simply met with negation! You disregard implications of the big bang (even some quantum theory if you want to get right down to it) just because those VERY POPULAR theories (which do nothing to negate theism, even compliment it) don't fit within your world-view, and *I'M* the irrational one! LOLOL!
As a result the emotions you felt from the “Serbian Orthodox” services are not attempted to be understood in scientific terms and instead religion has eagerly stepped in. This happened hundreds of years ago with solar eclipses. People did not understand them and thought they were “God’s doing.” Science came along and explained them and they are no longer misunderstood and attributed to God. Today that same thing occurs only this time it is more complex. It is emotions and feelings we do not understand and end up attributing to God. I would argue that just because something is not explainable through science does not make it forever unexplainable and certainly not something to attribute to any God. It is simply an unknown and should remain as such. To do other wise hinders our ability to study it. Indeed if people had accepted the religious view that eclipses were “Gods doing” and therefore did not question this view and never looked into it they would never have found out the truth.
More of the same, and I can't say I'm particularly compelled by your arguments. Modern science pretty much arose within a Christian environment (bare minimum a theistic one). I've also given examples of exceptional genius who happened to be religious, even those who have outright credited their contributions directly to their faith in God. So this faith/religion vs science/reason thing simply won't wash with me. History shows this dichotomy between faith and science is, at best, artificial and unnecessary, simply fallacious (and intellectually dishonest) at worst.
Getting back on topic -- The biases (and type of faith) revealed by your arguments have only proved that I can still be confident my kids will be raised in a more open-minded, intellectually honest environment than what you propose -- a disappointment, especially considering your method claims to be the "benchmark" in objectivity that no Christian upbringing can approach.
Regards,
I just want to clarify something before I respond to the above. You said…
“Yeah, problem is it's a lot more than 1% if you figure that number 1, majority of the world are religious, and 2, majority of those are Christians.”
The majority of the religious people are not Christian. They are non-Christian! Only 1/3 are Christian. But the problem with Christianity is that it is split and splitting up faster than an evolving species! So should I give it a 33% chance? And what would be the chance that Catholicism is right? ;-)
And I am sure you are not arguing that because something has a large following this makes it more likely to be true, right?
I found the following link to support this…
http://www.adherents.com/
Religio..._Adherents.html
-Kermit
Damion,
I found the following definition of “open-minded.”
Open-minded: Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.
How exactly would your child whom is taught, strongly (perhaps not definitely) , that Jesus IS the son of God going to be just as open to the idea that Jesus is not the son of God than my child whom is taught that no one knows if Jesus is the son of God?
Answer me that smarty-pants! ;-)
Imagine this scenario…
Someone says to your child and mine, “I just found some interesting evidence that Jesus is NOT the Son of God.” Son of Damion says, “Are you sure? That goes against a lot of what I have been taught! I will listen but it I doubt you are correct.” Son of Kermit, “Hmmm… interesting I was taught that could be true, show me this evidence.”
Is not my child displaying a mind that is more open to this possibility?
Or we could reverse it…
Someone says to your child and mine, “I just found some interesting evidence that Jesus is INDEED the Son of God.” Son of Damion says, “Yes of course you did! That is consistent with a lot of what I have been taught!” Son of Kermit, “Hmmm… interesting I was taught that could be true, show me this evidence.”
Hmmmm… Same response from my child.
I just want to clarify something before I respond to the above. You said…
“Yeah, problem is it's a lot more than 1% if you figure that number 1, majority of the world are religious, and 2, majority of those are Christians.”
The majority of the religious people are not Christian. They are non-Christian! Only 1/3 are Christian.
Um, I didn't say majority of the world is Christian. I said:
"majority of the world are religious"
Which your pie-chart handily proved.
But the problem with Christianity is that it is split and splitting up faster than an evolving species! So should I give it a 33% chance? And what would be the chance that Catholicism is right?
Yes, it's an inherent problem within Protestantism. One of the reasons I'm not one. There are many types of Athesits/Agnostics out there, as well.
And I am sure you are not arguing that because something has a large following this makes it more likely to be true, right?
Wait a minute -- according to you, nothing can be known as truth anyway. Let's use the term "rational" though and play a little logic game (you may have heard this one before):
Majority of people are rational
Majority of people are religious (remember your pie-chart), therefore
Religion is overall rational
Most religious are Christian, therefore
Christianity is the most rational religion.
:-)
How exactly would your child whom is taught, strongly (perhaps not definitely) , that Jesus IS the son of God going to be just as open to the idea that Jesus is not the son of God than my child whom is taught that no one knows if Jesus is the son of God?
Imagine this scenario…
Someone says to your child and mine, “I just found some interesting evidence that Jesus is NOT the Son of God.” Son of Damion says, “Are you sure? That goes against a lot of what I have been taught! I will listen but it I doubt you are correct.” Son of Kermit, “Hmmm… interesting I was taught that could be true, show me this evidence.”
Is not my child displaying a mind that is more open to this possibility?
Or we could reverse it…
Someone says to your child and mine, “I just found some interesting evidence that Jesus is INDEED the Son of God.” Son of Damion says, “Yes of course you did! That is consistent with a lot of what I have been taught!” Son of Kermit, “Hmmm… interesting I was taught that could be true, show me this evidence.”
We've already covered most of this, and I have no inclination to repeat myself anymore. Your arguments have shown an immense amount of cynical bias, logical fallacies, and unproven assumptions, particularly towards Christianity. Yet, you hide all this behind the terms "objective agnostic". I call BS, Kermit. If you can truly raise a child in the environment you claim, then congratulations... but for some reason, I have a difficult time believing that.
Answer me that smarty-pants!
You're welcome.
Regards,
Commenting by HaloScan
