Am I actually part of the problem?
Offline I've finally found some time to sit down and begin reading the End of Faith by Sam Harris. I read the chapter where he addresses the idea of religious moderation and the issues with it and it suddenly occurred to me that... well, I may be just as much of a problem as a religious moderate.
I've never believed in god and I grew up in a secular household where religion was really a non-issue. Religion only became an issue in the past 4 or 5 years for me but I am woefully ignorant compared to many other posters on this forum. After reading The End of Faith, I felt I really need to question my own position. So, I've really been thinking about it, and am stuck; I may be part of my own problem and here's why:
I've always said that I don't care if a person has religious belief or faith as long as that belief/faith doesn't affect adversely another person. I realize that this is a very 'on the fence' stance. I'm not particularly offending anyone, though that's certainly not my intention by adopting this view. I just really think that religious belief should be private and personal and should have no place in our government.
However, the more I think about that phrase that I keep repeating to myself (I don't care if a person has religious belief or faith as long as that belief/faith doesn't affect adversely another person) the more I feel as if I'm being a bit naive. After all, is it even possible for religion not to have an adverse effect on someone? Is my stance ultimately a cop out?
I personally find religion unecessary. However, I also think a person has the right to their religious belief as long as it doesn't hurt another person. (I know, I'm starting to annoy myself with this mantra) But if religion always has a victim, then do people have the right to that religion? There has to be a balance to this but I can't quite wrap my mind around it. And until I do, I can't make up my mind whether or not I'm actually working against myself somehow.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
- Login to post comments
It is not a cop out. Your feelings very closely mirror my own, and I asked myself the same question before. I believe that eradicating religion is impossible. But, removing the harm from religion may be possible one day (maybe I'm dreaming).
Consider this. There are many irrational beliefs:
- Superstitions (breaking mirrors, walking under ladders, rabbits feet)
- Home medical remedies (feed a cold starve a fever, hiccup cures)
- Lies told to kids (Santa Claus, if you make that face it will stay that way)
- Karma
- Significance of birthdays
- Phrenology, morphology
This is not an exhaustive list, I am just making the point that irrationality is not limited to religion. And if people believe any of the above, I would question their judgment, and maybe intelligence, but I accept their right to believe it.
I would like to add 2 caveats.
1. If the irrationality is harmful to the person, I would attempt to dissuade that person for their own benefit. But, there is only so much you can do to protect people from themselves.
2. If the irrationality victimizes someone laws should be there to protect the unknowing and punish the wrongdoers. Like the con-artist psychics who, for example, dupe parents out of money claiming to help find missing children.
Obviously a lot of religion falls into both categories. But if religion can be practiced peacefully, like yoga or golf, I think society would have no choice but to allow it to exist (like yoga or golf lol).
Responsibility: A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911
i've read harris's books, i understand your dilemma. deep down i do feel that religion is harmful on any level, even to the person who is very private and passive in their belief. this is something that can come into conflict with my views on freedom of choice, and it can be difficult to rationalize.
but if i step back and look at my bigger goal as an atheist, keeping religion out of schools, out of government and politics, i realize that the path to achieving that goal begins with the individual. that one person who has their polite little belief system, and doesn't raise an objection to the things going on around them because they are content in their own religious bubble. that's the person whose eyes need to be opened. sure, they aren't hurting anybody. but they have the potential to be helping many.
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
Tolerance is not the same as Acceptance.
Acceptance leads to Indifference, and being Indifferent to religion definitely is a dangerous thing.
Tolerance still leaves room for skeptisism.
High Pope
Thanks everyone!
I'm sure that most people hold some sort of irrational belief. I admit I still 'knock on wood' even though I know it does absolutely nothing. I suppose the difference is that I realize its an irrational that doesn't really do anything as opposed to a theist who really believes that homosexuality is a sin, for example. Plus, the only thing my knocking on wood is going to hurt is maybe my knuckles.
Do you honestly think that religion can be practiced peacefully? In order to do so, wouldn't a marjority of the tenets of most holy books (and not all) have to be thrown out?
On a base level, I could say that I understand why some people would find peace or solace in their religious faith. However, the more I read (Bible included) the more I have to wonder if those people are truly even religious.
Like djneibarger, I find it very imperative that we keep religion out of our government, schools, etc. However, I also believe firmly that others have the right to believe (I know, this again) and I would not want to infringe upon someone else's freedom of speech, religion, etc. Just because I don't like what they have to say (or believe) doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to say it. I think this is where I'm having the problems. I feel as if I am trying to take away someone's freedom somehow.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
That's fair enough, as far as it goes, however it misses at least one point. What if the believer's faith doesn't hurt anyone else, but does harm the believer himself/herself.
I personally believe that the greatest strength of human beings is our ability and tendency to question the universe around us. To ask questions from "why does a kettle boil?" to "what is a supernova?"
Faith, belief, religion - call it what you will - removes the need for that questioning mind. It actively discourages the curiosity which has driven our civilizations. When the answer to any question is, "Oh, god did that," then our ability to probe the universe is diminished. And that would be a terrible thing, because it is the human ability to question which has given us everything from pencils and penicillin to space shuttles and spoons.
the question is are you taking away their freedom, or are you setting them free?
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
Ish - you're absolutely correct and its a point I completely missed. However, if a person is only hurting themself and doesn't want to change then that is their choice. I mean, you can hold an intervention for a drug addict, but you can't force him/her to stop. (And before anyone gets all upset, I'm NOT equating theism with drug addiction)
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Not much difference from convincing someone that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5 or telling a 14 year old that still believes that Santa/The Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy isn't real.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Responsibility: A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911
Matt, very true and I agree with you. But what if that 14 year old still believes in Santa after you tell him? And what if he beliefs are just as strong as yours? What do you do? I'm just saying there is a limit to what you can do. Beyond that limit is oppression, and I believe oppression is evil.
Responsibility: A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911
Why not equate theism with drug addiction? I would...
You could define them as follows:
Drug addiction: Using substances which produce enjoyable physical/mental sensations in the short term but cause long term dependency problems. Frequently used in order to avoid reality.
Theism: Beliefs which create enjoyable sensations (i.e. belief in eternal life/paradise/reincarnation) but cause problems (e.g. suicide bombers, invasion of Iraq, storming of the temple at Amritsar). Frequently used to avoid reality.
Actuallly I'd have to say that I have enjoyed (and inhaled) drugs in the past but I've never enjoyed religion. Drugs win!
I think that Harris has one point about religious moderation.
We shouldn't let it's harmlessness stop our polite criticism of it.
If someone told me they'd converted to a moderate religion, I'd find it equivalent to them taking up weed - not ideal for their health but perhaps an important step in their experiencing life that they'll learn from. So I might express a mild disapproval, but other than that I'd pretty much accept it.
I think that some moderate beliefs can be accepted, wheras fundamentalism I can only tolerate. Sometimes people perceive Harris' argument that acceptance of moderate faith opens a validation towards fundamentalism but that's a slippery slope argument on a similar scale to those who say "Allow weed and next thing you know they'll be smoking crack!!"
Besides, the political climate of England disproves such an argument.
So, is moderate religion a gateway drug? Just kidding. I understand what you're saying and it certainly makes sense. As pointed out already, there is a difference between acceptance and tolerance.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
RELIGIOUS MODERATION= ?
this is either an extreemly vague concept regarding religion or its completely non-existent.
its vague if you are talking about religious rules.
"I pick and choose what rules I will follow, albeit they are decreed by god, so that makes me a Religious Moderate."
its non-existent if you are talking about religious belief.
"I only believe in god on Mondays and Thursdays and sometimes Saturdays, but never on Tuesdays and odd numbered years, therefor I am a Religious Moderate."
the word itself "religious", when used aside from faiths, in and of itself means "extreem".
"I have followed the Harry Potter series religiously."
(actually I havent. Ive only read one of the books. so i guess that makes me a "moderate" fan of Harry Potter. Not "Religious".)
So suffice to say, I believe the term "RELIGIOUS MODERATE" to be an oxymoron.
High Pope
I agree that it is a vague term but I'm not so sure I would call it an oxymoron. I understand religious moderation to be just that: religion in moderation. Granted, anyone who leans more toward extremism or zealousness is going to consider a 'moderate' person to be in cahoots with all the heathens. Likewise, I personally think that person who is moderately religious isn't truly religious at all. I think that person is just paying lip service to god. They'll be offended if you question or criticize the religion but they're not going to blow themselves up at a train station because of it.
A religious moderate wants to live this life the way he wants to and get to chill out in the afterlife as well. I imagine that many atheists on this forum probably know more about Christianity than a moderately religious Christian.
What pisses me off about people who fall into this category is that they hold these beliefs and they don't even know why they hold them. I worked for a guy who was like this and he was against gay marriage. When asked why, he simply stated 'marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the way god made it'. WTF?! What kind of reasoning is that?
Oh wait, that would be something almost any religious person could say.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
In terms of actual "belief"
the term "Religious Moderate" cannot be construed as anything but an Oxymoron.
In this sense it can only be defined as another word: "Agnostic"
You either believe or you dont. If your on the fence.....being a "Religious Moderate" is synomymous with "Agnostic".
And if you follow this train of reason to completion it will bring you to a much more refined definition of the "Religious Moderate = Agnostic" Equation.
The Answer is: "HYPOCRITE"
And here is where there is no longer a difference between the two examples of "Religious Moderation" I sited before:
one of "Belief in general" and the other of "Laws, and by which ones they choose to abide."
The words "Religious" and "Moderation" are contradictory. Just because you can use them together does not make them possible.
"Democratic Fascism"
"Jewish Naziism"
So we need to break it down to its most simple term, as I unwittingly use Ockhams Razor.
"Religious Hypocrite"
or even more simply put:
"HYPOCRITE"
High Pope
(any agnostics who read this and think i just called you hypocrites and lumped you in the same category as so-called religious moderates.........I did.)
I agree with you that 'religious moderate' is hypocritical. As I said, I don't really consider a person who claims to be moderate religious at all.
I'm not seeing the correlation between a religiously moderate person and an agnostic, however. I don't think those two are one and the same. Please elaborate, as I'm interested in why you think this.
It is my understanding that an agnostic stance is one in which the knowledge of a higher power will always be unknowable. A religious moderate, imo, is a person who believes (eh) in god, goes to church occasionally and basically just goes through the motion of being a religious person. Its more of a cultural thing anything else.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
i don't know that i would use the term 'naive', so much as 'idealist'.
mind you, not all theists deserve a punch in the balls. a great majority, perhaps, but not all. i don't like every atheist i've ever met. some have bad breath, some like pumpkin pie, some mistreat their children, some are just plain assholes. but nor have i disliked every theist that i've met; mutual respect is mutually exclusive of ideology. granted, a true theist is a fundamental theist, god's word being absolute and all, but in a perfect world, where each is entitled to their own and nobody steps on each other's [a]spiritual toes, theism (qua theism) can't be ethically persecuted any more than can atheism.
i'm not so idealistically naive to pretend that religion is practiced this way, mind, but on a strictly ethical basis, each has the right to their own private beliefs. hell, it's not like you can force somebody to think what you want them to think anyway. would that i could, there would be no pumpkin pie (and i'd be doing you a favor in abolishing it, for pumpkin pie is culinary evil) but it would not be within my rights to do so because at the end of the day, public is public and private is private, and it's really nobody's fucking business who anybody else does or doesn't pray to.
to put it prosaically, your right to preach at my ears. you couldn't stop sombody from believing in anything they so choose even if you tried, and you wouldn't be justified in doing so anyway where those beliefs have no impact on you.
if (born++) {truth=null};
public is public and private is private, and it's really nobody's fucking business who anybody else does or doesn't pray to.
This pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole situation. Perhaps because America's politics are becoming so enmeshed with religion I have a hard time being able to see religion as something 'private'. Granted, I have no idea what religious position the marjority of people I interact with on a daily basis have. I don't particularly care, either. However, if someone started to proselytize then I imagine I would have a problem with that.
Oh, and I love pumpkin pie. I'm sorry that I'll be relegated to your shit list because of it.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
I think moderates are pretty much harmless in themselves, but it does perhaps perpetuate the image that faith is ok, and this is harmful. I know loads of moderates, most of Britain is moderately religious. The thing I tend to find is that although moderates are normally cleverer than fundies, and are more likely to be better educated etc, they are actually less consistant in their arguments than fundies, simply because they cherry-pick, you can still accuse fundies of inconsistancy but moderates are more inconsistant. Harris is right, and Dennet and Dawkins say the same thing, we shouldn't be deterred from polite criticism of what are unfounded beliefs.
I'm undecided as to whether moderate religion is all that dangerous.
Atheist Books
I believe that everyone is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their religious beliefs. Faith is a personal matter and it's not for me to say whether or not people should believe in God.
One thing that depresses me a bit about some of the more militant atheists here is that they seem to regard faith of any sort as dangerous and, frankly, it isn't. Most moderate theists - and it's actually pretty stupid to call moderate theists hypocrites considering that most moderate theists keep their beliefs pretty much to themselves, respect the law and conform to societal convention - have pretty much the same values as you or I.
On the other hand fundamentalism is dangerous as it means imposing your religious view upon others. No-one has the right to do that whether they be militant atheist or born again evangelist.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
moderates were the ones who helped G. W. Bush become president.
they sat idle as the moral majority, the christian nationalists, the evangelical right and evangelical neo-cons took over an entire country.
i suppose they figured "these guys believe in the same god I do so I guess they must be okay people."
so i believe we owe the "religious moderates" a big thanks, for letting an entire electorate that believes the world is going to end in the next fifty years, and a distinct group of them who would like to force it along, make one of the most important desicions any american citizen can make, for us.
thinking that it is safe to allow these people to continue practicing this type of belief because they are "doing it in the privacy of their own homes" can only lead do an extreemly negative result.
As it already has. They run our country.
Do you know why?
Because they are NOT practicing their beleifs in their own homes! They are organized, and have nearly unlimited TAX-FREE funding to force their beliefs into our government, and use their influence to make laws and political policies that have no moral objective than to protect their own special interests.
stem cell research? abstinence only? pro-life? to name a few.
I can probably count on one hand how many anti-abortion anti-stem cell research, abstinece only, Athiest there are in America.
Athiests need to call these nutjobs out on their beliefs. Theists need to provide us with the burden of proof as to how their ideals are benefitting humanity, and why their beliefs should become our laws. But instead the indifference of moderates and indiciciveness of agnostics wrote this administration a blank check. (Thanks again for Bush's Faith Based Initiatives guys)(sarcasm)
All the while we watch the damage their ideals and beliefs are causing, because namby-pamby moderates and agnostics figure that these people are entitled to their personal religions.
Im not saying people shouldnt be entitled to their beliefs, but when their beliefs start to infringe upon my rights its straight up bullshit.
and I dont blame them one bit. I knew what they believed getting into this. I blame all the lazy bastards that wont get off their asses and realize that these people and their beliefs are dangerous, and need to be stopped.
as we speak, Christian Nationalism is gaining speed and strength, and there doesnt appear to be too many roadblocks in their way. If they end up having their way it will be the end of Democracy in America. We will have a State Sponsored Religion and we will de-evolve back into a Theocracy.
These people are not behind closed doors. They are in our faces writting our laws. If you dont see that you are blind.
In The End of Faith and The God Delusion both Sam and Richard postulate that any theistic belief facilitates the extremists' ideals and subsequent actions - if they didn't believe in a god that says: be my bitch or go to hell, they wouldn't do suicide in crowds. Of course we're still gonna have OTHER psychopaths who don't care whether god exists or not - who just hate the world cos they're not getting any sex.
Any delusion, OTHER than belief in an, or the, invisible sky chappie, is treated as a sickness because we all know invisible beings are no more than fragments or figments of the imagination.
And when you have unscrupulous scammers looking for the easy dollar meeting gullible plebes willing to give it to them, as long as they are given incredible dreams and security in a perceived after-life in return, you have the best conditions for the best continuous sting in the history of the universe, or any other large place.
I'm not into the psychological stroking of the insane. The only bubbles I won't burst are children's Easter Bunny and Santa Claus bubbles. And, I don't care if I'm called a hypocrite; part of being a child is having fantasies - reality will come soon enough.
Re End of Faith - I thought the first 1/3 was excellent, 2nd 1/3 was good and the last 1/3 was a struggle.
Re God Delusion - it held me all the way through.
I've discovered that it all boils down to brain wiring: your brain is wired to worship magic or it isn't, either it's wired to utilize logic or it isn't, either it's analytical of myths or it isn't.
I'll quote something I read on another forum, which perfectly sums up my view:
"The problem with ... religious tolerance ... is that it's centered around the idea that "As long as it doesn't affect me, let them believe whatever crazy things they want." Unfortunately, you'll scarcely find a person who's beliefs don't dictate their actions, and you'll scarcely find someone who's actions don't affect anyone else"
QED
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
I agree.... kinda.......it sounds like such a benign statement, I wish the ones you are supporting with such a statement would adhere to your advice.
It would be nice if christians would keep it personal, but they are mandated by god to spread the word. So in a perfect world I would agree with you, but it’s not a perfect world.
I absolutely disagree with you on this. I believe all faith in imaginary all powerful, all knowing beings is dangerous.
The pseudo-quazi faithful give too much undo respect to the militantly faithful, and because of this the militantly faithful are empowered. (see my last post for an example.)
Well for one I’m not stupid, but I’m sure you ran out of words, and didn’t mean to say that, so let’s assume that you meant to use the word "presumptuous" instead of "stupid", and we'll move on from there.
I consider anyone who does not follow their "holy book" written by the divine hand of god to an absolute "T”, a hypocrite. Who the hell do they think they are to defy the laws of their own god?
As far as the laws they respect. Wow. Reread my last post. The Laws and political policies in America are being writ by christians for the soul benefit of their own ideological causes, not for the benefit of all Americas Citizens or humanity in general.
Don’t bet on it.
Fundamentalism is dangerous, I agree, but not because they want to convert you or impose their view on you, Its because they flat out WANT TO KILL YOU for not believing what they believe.
You’re wrong about the rights thing though. Either side is (supposedly) protected equally by the first amendment.
And I’m definitely afraid for the longevity of the first amendment if we keep granting these christians more undeserved power. It is the indifferences of those who aren’t adamantly apposed to religion that empower the religious to do what ever they want.
Faith is no longer a personal matter. It has become public and faith is now playing a role in US laws. Just as High Pope said, it was the religious moderates that voted Bush into office. It was the religious moderates who voted against gay marriage. I would like to think that religious moderates are harmless. Most are, as individuals. Combined, they become a driving force that has the power to vote on legislation; to change or enact laws that affect other people based upon their religious faith.
Faith becomes dangerous when it becomes too big, too public. It becomes dangerous when faith begins to shape public policy.
Yet, I still think people have the right to religious belief. Likewise, I also think that people have the right not to have religious belief. The fact that most Americans wouldn't vote an unbeliever into the presidential office says a lot, as far as I'm concerned.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
for the record, i want to clarify that i was speaking strictly in the most idealistic and ethical of terms. the u.s. is but a few shades away from theocracy, and this is 361° of WRONG. man has proven time and again that we cannot keep our beliefs to ourselves, and more often than not feel a maddeningly compelling need to persecute, conquer or destroy anybody who does not agree with us. would that belief were truly private, shared only with those who seek to share it, it would be a perfectly viable practice. but hell, even communism looks good on paper.
i think the world will be a much better place when we have evolved beyond mysticism, but i fear that we will see the end of humanity before it comes to pass.
if (born++) {truth=null};
Idealism. I think that may be the problem with my current stance. Yes, I do think that people have the right to religious belief as long as that belief doesn't affect someone else adversely.
Yet religion must always effect someone adversely. It has to by its very nature, doesn't it? You have the chosen people, the ones in god's good graces. Everyone else is the enemy. If you're not part of the group, you're against the group.
So what is the proper stance to take? How does one still respect the rights of others to have belief even though that belief has the potential to effect others?
If god takes life he's an indian giver
To believe that such is always the case is rather delusional, I think.
Ok, well not every single religion would hold to that, but many do, or perhaps more specifically the major religions. I don't really think that's such a delusional claim. A little over the top, perhaps but not delusional.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
I haven't read everything in this thread, but the impression I have is that you're conflicted between wanting to see religious influence tapered away but at the same time you don't want to do it aggressivly.
I think that's a fine stance to take. There are many passive aggrssive ways to go about it. I'm in a similar position. I don't have the knowledge or the time to really go about an educational debate type style. But what I can do is try to affect things from a political level.
Education is the biggest enemy to religion. If you ask me, the best way to fight religion is to fight it through the education system. Making sure that they are teaching the right things, that they aren't teaching evolution as "a hairbrain idea but we have to tell you because it's part of the system".
Making sure that everyone is actually getting an education. And post-secondary opportunities made easier. This is just one idea. I'm sure that there are hundreds of 'nice' ways to go about promoting the ideals and educating people.
You can also respect an individuals right to belief while at the same time attacking the organization itself. Some individuals won't like you attacking the organization but I find that telling people something like "I don't mind that you believe in god, but i don't like that this organiation tries to push its influence on people through political means" or something like that...most people tend to agree that they shouldn't force other people to conform to their belief and seem to not mind the attack on their organization =P
I disagree. It may not be 100%, but as a general rule parents teach thier kids to believe what they believe. Educating a child to blindly believe something despite evidence is adversly affecting that child.
Of course, this may just be a matter of opinion as to what is an adverse effect. But from most atheists perspective the very foundation of blind fath is in itself a problem.
Exactly. You just managed to say it in a much more eloquent and straight forward way. Thanks.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
{Edit - Double Post}
And I wish a lot of militant atheists would do the same. Who knew?
You seem to be missing the word 'some' there. Evangelicals spread the word, most Christians believe that a person must come to Christ of their own volition without being pressganged. Of course, they may spread the word by advertising church services and the like but that's as far as it generally goes.
Why? As long as it's personal who cares?
Uh... so that would be why Judge Jones - a republican Christian - overturned the Dover School board verdict then? Don't generalise please - most theists recognise stupidity when they see just as much as most atheists do.
Never said you were. It is, however, a stupid statement.
Nope, I meant stupid as in "having or showing a lack of common sense, comprehension, perception, etc". In this case it's a lack of perception because your powers of discernment appear to have let you down a bit.
Most Christians would argue that they do follow the guidance of Christ under the New Covenant.
That must be why you live in a theocracy that doesn't permit women to vote, homosexuals to live openly, abortions to be performed and which has compulsory prayer in school.
Oh wait, you don't. In fact all of the above were allowed by the votes of primarily Christian politicians.
Actually I'm willing to stake everything on it because, let's face it, as my government is headed by a devoutly religious man and many of the cabinet have religious beliefs I actually have to. So far they've demonstrated the same values as everyone else.
True. That's hardly exclusive to religion though.
Not in my country it isn't.
Christianity as a religion is declining. In addition more 'liberal' legislation has been passed in the last fifty years than the last five hundred.
I don't mean to be rude but it's just plain wrong to lump your average theist/deist in with the fundies.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Holy crap. This is like the Catholic guilt version of non-belief. One of the big bonuses of being outside a major religion is the fact that you don't have to listen to someone making you feel guilty. Be the best Pariahjane you can be and forget about it. Just not acting like a nutbag theist is sufficient help. "'Every little bit helps,' said the gnat as it pissed into the sea."
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
When people deny that moderate religion affects us, I think that they're being really pedantic. Sure moderate religion affects us, but so subtley that to want to end it is nit-picky and a show of double standards as there are plenty of more harmful things that you probably don't criticise.
(I'm into two minds whether computer games are more harmful than moderate religion...)
I think that moderate religion should still be open to honest criticism and that we should be able to give our opinion on it like we would with bad music, but militance against it would just be silly.
LOL!!! Thanks, Nero. That's what I'm trying to do. I've always wondered what catholic guilt felt like. lol.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
If moderate religion was only that, then I think I agree with you. The problem is that what is moderate religion? Is moderate religion mean 100% secularism where religion does not play a role in influencing government? Does it mean that people in religion accept the social curve of acceptance or are they still free to hate on people because they are moderatly faithful? Is there only certain sects that are acceptable in moderate religion?
What exactly is moderate religion? Actually, I think that's my biggest problem with moderate religion is that I don't understand it. Because I consider [name] moderate in his faith, yet still he votes against gay marriage because he believes it's wrong. Moderate religion in that instance is affecting other people. Is moderate religion only when it doesn't affect other people? What about teaching your kid that the world is 6k years old? Is moderate religion only when people teach science and come to their own conclusion that there is a god?
I'm greatly confused by the term moderate religion because my interpretations of moderate religion are still promoting and teaching that blind faith is a positive and that everyone else is going to hell.
So sorry for the long rant to ultimatly ask 1 question, but what is acceptable moderate religion?
religious moderate = passive aggressive. these are your kentucky bible belt baptists that can't even spell 'theodicy', cannot count aquinas' proofs for lack of teeth, think that 'geocentricity' is one of them high-falutin' ten-dollar werds them damn yanks use, and think that we're fighting luis farrakhan out thar in them orl fields. yeah, it's a wide brush, but i'm not to blame for the fact that the stereotype exists. to be a little more fair, religious moderates are the folks that voted for bush because he's anti-gay, and haven't thought through his policies well enough to realize that he's anti-mormon too. these are the people who wanted to see a constitutional fucking amendment to ban same-sex marriage, while tithing to a church that preaches a doctrine what fosters the molestation of children. a religious moderate is somebody who says that she doesn't really mind wearing a burqa because it allows her to deal on an equal plane with her male peers who cannot then judge her by her appearance. and to be perfectly fair, religious moderates are not the ones who killed daniel pearl, they're the ones who watched it happen, ranted for a week either for or against, and have now forgotten who he was.
in the most simple of terms: a religious moderate is somebody who is religious and has put no thought into what that means, and certainly none into the ramifications of it. they are especially dangerous in america because if there is any failing of democracy it is that it rests on the presumption that the majority of the people know what the fuck they're talking about. that would be comically wrong if it weren't so fucking depressingly wrong. besides, weak minds can be jedi mind-tricked into doing stupid shit. "that building is an abortion clinic; you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. these aren't the stem cells you're looking for. [cast your vote], move along".
religious moderates do not want to rock the boat; they are fearful people, and as all we know, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to the kkk. slippery slope fallacy? try being an atheist father in the midwest for a week.
again, i don't care who somebody prays to, so long as it remains private. it's kinda like ugly people having sex; i would never deign to tell two consenting adults that they do not have the right to a long night of blissful, sweaty, romance... just please close the door first, and no thank you i'd really rather not join in.
if (born++) {truth=null};
Pretty much... yeah...
Where moderatism affects government it is indirect.
If a politician is religious then there will be an influence there, but there's no official "Christian Nation" or "Biblical Values" talk going on.
Clearly there isn't a single dividing line between moderatism and fundamentalism, but there are several good rules of thumb to distinguish between fundies and moderates.
Do they accept other beliefs? (provided human rights aren't violated ofcourse!)
Do they hold conspiracy theories towards scientific results?
Are they offended by disbelief?
Do they try to justify their morals by the Bible or common sense?
Do they rigidly believe in the absolute literal truth in the Bible or do they see it as a history of man's encounters with God?
Will they hold to a command of the Bible, even if it goes against all common sense?
Moderatism clearly has some effect on other people, but not enough to warrant political uproar. Especially as there are things that are likely more 'harmful' than moderate religious influence. Another thing to bear in mind is that religion is sometimes the only place a person will hear teachings on morals. I'd say that in many parts of the world that moderate religion is a practical necessity.
Then we have very different interpretations of moderate religion.
Hell theology is a sign of fundamentalism.
I like to think I've answered that question.
For a better idea, spend a year or so in England.
After you've gotten to know some people for a while, ask if they have a religion and if so, what it does for them. I doubt you'll have a problem with moderate religion after that.
Fair enough, and I think that is the majority of the people here as well. The one problem with moderation is that it lends credit and respectability to fundamentalism as a general rule. And you're always going to have people that think it's "right" to send their kids to catholic schools etc just because it was how they were brought up. Or moderate that have kids and suddenly start going to church regularly for hteir kids sake. Moderation encourages fundamentalism. Moderation in young-earth religions still also tend to believe in godidit over evolution since they aren't educated on either topic. If moderation was strictly passive and produced passive then I would take 0 issue with it.
I'm afraid I have to agree with High Pope on this one. It is the moderates who have allowed Bush to become president, they are the ones who are pushing for the laws to ban gay marriage and, for all intensive purposes, they are getting their wish.
The moderates are not practicing their religion privately or passively. I think they are a huge driving force in the US.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
There's also a lot more fundamentalism in the US than there are in (I believe) any of the other modern, educated, and wealthy countries.
Patrician,
I appreciate your prespective, and we have caught each other in the act of generalizing a large populous. Which, unfortunately is what is done in debates such as this.
I do believe even the most personal of religious beliefs are unhealthy, because I veiw it as being delusional.
But my point here is that even the most modest versions of religious belief enable the more radical versions to get away with more than ever should be allowed. (in America at least)
I cannot see how belief in god benefits humanity, any more than a lack of belief benefits humanity. From my perspective the benefits from either stance could be considered equal.
I can see, however, the damage religious belief causes, and In my view its damage far exceeds its benefits.
we no longer need god, and i feel belief in god is holding back the human race, no matter what level of belief.
(what Country do you live in? If you dont mind me asking...)
You could point that to any moderation-excess situation.
Alcohol, gambling, computer gaming, luxury eating - all things that are healthy in moderation but are bad in excess. Moderate religion joins them.
In each case, an emphasis on the line between moderation and excess is the ideal rather than trying to attack the moderate habits as well. If you take prohibition as an example, on the one hand it was a great ideal, on the other hand it was stupidly unrealistic and pressed unfair limitations on people who could handle drink moderately. Consequently, most people had no respect for the prohibition laws. An RRS style attack on moderate religion would have the same effect. The RRS emerged as a response to fundamentalism and that's what it is suited for.
Having been brought up through Catholic Schools and Sunday Churches myself I see no problem with this. We were taught Christianity but not dogmatically. Grey areas like sex outside marriage, abortion and euthanasia were discussed as open questions rather than condemning 'sins' as evil.
While there are potentially better teachings on morality, there don't seem to be any present in the current educational system. At the moment, religious teachings are the best around. Most moderates don't cling to Christian dogma like fundies do, rather they accept it as it is the best explanation they have come across so far. Attacking a position is only necessary in order to loosen an irrational clinging to it to allow a better one. As moderates don't have this clinginess as much, the attacking is pointless. A better way would be to devellop an alternative so moderates don't settle for Christianity.
I cannot count any young earth creationist as moderate.
A creationist might be moderate in their morality, but to reject the results of biology (and to therefore accept the conspiracy theories about how the world's scientists have all gotten it wrong) is to have an extreme faith in a religious doctrine.
A moderate must have a harmony between their theology and science.
It's not perfectly passive but acceptably passive.
Like I said earlier, the purpose of attacking a doctrine is to open a person's mind who clings to it dogmatically. Moderates, as I understand them, don't serious problems regarding a clinginess to Christianity. (otherwise I'd consider it fundamentalism)
Most of them just see it as the best way to account for certain areas of life and experience, hence many scientists accepting religion on the NOMA principle. (science explains the world and religion explains ethics and human nature)
While I don't see the need to directly 'attack' moderate religion, I'd like to see the steps taken that would lead to it's demise. Steps such as teaching philosophy (such as logic, critical thinking and applications to issues of politics and morality) in schools. With our current education system, topics like morality aren't discussed and can often seem mysterious, encouraging the acceptance of a supernatural explanation. Bringing philosophy into schools would bring illumination to these subjects that would destroy the attraction of mystical explanations, and give people tools to accurately criticise opposing views rather than being reduced to "everyone's opinion is valid" when they don't know where to start the critique.
Ok, High Pope, tis a fair call.
I just don't agree that the religious moderates are that easily swayed by the fundamentalist nutters and that most religious observance is utterly harmless.
But you say toe-may-toe, I say toh-mah-toe.
I'm from Scotland incidentally.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
I don't think video-gaming or alcohol consumption is a fair comparison to religious moderates. A person who is a heavy video-gamer is really only hurting themself. Granted, that person isn't exactly a great contributor to society but still, he's not out there en masse trying to pass laws against people who don't fit his video-gaming ideologies.
Perhaps it's the amount of religious moderates that are in this country that is the issue. These people rarely go to church, pay lipservice to god and run to the ballot to vote against stem cell research and gay marriage because that's what they believe makes them 'good Christians'. I mean, just because they are the marjority, it doesn't give them the right to take away the rights of the minority.
Not sure if that makes sense, I'm trying to speed type/think. Sorry!If god takes life he's an indian giver
Something I notice in these "should we tolerate moderates" threads is that moderates are defended by Brits and attacks by Americans, and when Americans give characteristics of moderatism the Brits go, "That's fundamentalism, not moderatism!"
I think Americans have a third term for what we Brits consider to be moderate, and that is 'liberal Christian'. That is, the guy who believes there's some kind of God out there, but admits that the concept is tricky and elusive and would be suspicious of anyone who claims to have certain knowledge on the subject, or the girl who'll declare she has a special relationship with Jesus, but that her common sense morals dictate he won't mind her jumping into bed with you!
Thoughts?
I think you're absolutely right. As far as I know religion is a non-issue of sorts for you guys, but its a major issue here. And the moderately religious hold a great deal of power, imo.
If god takes life he's an indian giver