Sometimes I think, or hope at least, if I just start writing, something will begin to roll out of my mushy little mind. I have been writing online here for a few months and elsewhere over the past 20 months or so. I have written 141 posts on my blog. Granted, some of them don't amount to much. Some are just silly and pointless. But a number of them were written with at least a modicum of thought, seasoned at times with emotion, occasionally rather raw emotion - usually anger.
Since my first blog post in November of 2005 I have read a number of books, several magazine articles, any number of blog posts and comments, most having to do with god and religion. I still have difficulty making sense of it all. Just as it seems that born-again christians constantly repeat a small number of stock phrases drummed into their heads at their respective churches, I find that I too, have become somewhat repetitive in what often amounts to diatribes against religious belief and believers, dominionists, religious radicals of all stripes and their often heinous acts of violence. I guess there are only so many ways one can say the same things.
I just finished reading a book I alluded to in a previous article, Jack Huberman's The Quotable Atheist. As I noted, it is a collection of several quotes from mostly non-believers but with a few believer quotes thrown in just to spice it up a bit. Some are quite funny, but most are serious in nature. In the end when taken together, the message is essentially the same: Religion and a belief in god, any god, is wasteful, ludicrous and to many of the "quotees" downright evil.
While I could laugh at many of the good, often witty quotes, ultimately I put the book down with a twinge of sadness, even of dread. A great deal of the turmoil, destruction and death now being perpetrated on our planet is based on which god one believes in.
The recent failed bombings in London provided yet another wake-up call about the ever present danger of terrorist attacks. One can only take heart in the fact that these guys were inept. They couldn't get out of their own way. I conjured a scene of one of the supposedly brainiac doctors attempting to detonate one of the two Mercedes bombs by dialing their cell phone, only to have the recorded message break in "We're sorry, the number you have reached is not in service."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Les Slater
Bariton,
Cheer up, things arn't as bad as the seem.
I too spent months studying religion, mostly western from Helenic Greece to modern Chatholisim. I spent weekend at a retreat at the Gethsemani Trappist monastary in kentucky. Standing at the foot of Thomas Mertin's grave was truly a spiritual experience.
I also studied Hegel during this period. I agree with him that not all in religion is bad.
But I never thought that the world conflicts were inherently religious in nature. These occur in a material world with material interests at stake.
We have to look at the conflicts from this materialist perspective and act accordingly.
The majority of us in the world have no material interst in fighting each other.
Les
2 - Joe
I'm sorry to say that your essay was all over the map. But you won me back with your closing Einstein quote. I don't even want to try to argue religion with you so I will just repeat this for impact:
To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man."
Genius. In more ways then one.
3 - Baritone
Les,
I agree with you regarding the true source of most war. It almost always comes down to the material. A great number of the followers of Islam have little or nothing, and nothing to lose.
But the pretext is almost never material. I would think it damn near impossible to impel a nation's people to rise up against another over money. Warmongering leaders must find something far more emotionally appealing to rouse their populations into taking up arms. That "something" is usually either nationalism, religion, or both. I suppose you can also throw racial purity in the mix as well.
I know that historically the church has had its moments in the development of civilization, of providing a central locus, a source for community. But all of this could have been achieved without any notion of a god. Humans are social animals. The benefits of forming communities became apparent to many in the quest for survival. No church was needed.
I know a number of people feel that those of us warning against the dominionists and the raptiles are alarmists. That we are over reacting. That may be. Frankly, I'd rather be proven the fool than suffer the consequences of ignoring their threat and being wrong.
Baritone
4 - Les Slater
Baratone,
No church was needed? That's besides the point. Humanity created God(s), their temples and priests.
Les
5 - Baritone
Joe,
I know the post has a meandering quality to it, but it is all strung together by the underlying theme of the hatred and violence being perpetrated by religious radicals.
As to arguing religion, it rarely results in little of value. What it all comes down to is that most people believe in a living, personal god, and I don't. Never the twain shall meet. I don't believe in any manifestation of anything one would refer to as a god. I will not humble or prostrate myself before a phantom.
I do like the Einstein quote, though. It is mystery which makes us turn to the next page, drive on over the next hill or turn in the road, to ask questions, to wonder. It is that element of our consciousness - our inquisitive nature -which is, I believe, uniquely human.
Baritone
6 - gonzo marx
interesting read, Baritone..thanks for putting this out there
/golfclap
Excelsior?
7 - Les Slater
"I do like the Einstein quote, though. It is mystery which makes us turn to the next page, drive on over the next hill or turn in the road, to ask questions, to wonder. It is that element of our consciousness - our inquisitive nature -which is, I believe, uniquely human."
Uniquely Human? I thought that it was curiosity that killed the cat.
I also like the Einstein quote. I actually think it gives a clue as to the necessity for a God, religion and church. The evolution of humanity was such that we had no idea of a scientific approach to reality in the beginning.
During the early stages of development of an individual in a modern, developed society, the authority, the parent(s), must tell a child a very simplified, not scientifically rigorous, explanation for questions asked. The child is incapable of understanding a thoroughly materialist concept of the world which he or she lives in.
With proper guidance, education, a child of modern society can grow up not depending on superstition. This is analogous to the development of society, but on a different time scale.
8 - Dr Dreadful
Uniquely Human? I thought that it was curiosity that killed the cat.
That old saying merely projects a human attribute onto cats. Usually, the cat who appears to be curious is actually ascertaining whether the object of interest is something it can (a) eat or (b) screw. It's really just being thorough.
But it is a uniquely human trait (as far as we know) to seek out knowledge for its own sake - and leave it till later to figure out if that knowledge might actually be useful.
9 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Baritone,
I read this article once - I read it twice. All I could think was "what a blind man." I've read the comments, and again, all I could think was, "the blind leading the blind in resolutely refusing to see."
One of the reasons things seem so bad is that you lack both faith and trust - as do the majority of your commenters. Logic and shaving with Ockham's razor get you only so far, and no further. This is one of the few truly profound points in The Divine Comedy.
And I'm not going to argue religion with you either...
10 - gonzo marx
ah... Ruvy, shalom...
all depends upon what one has faith and trust in, doesn't it?
but you knew that
Excelsior?
11 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Hi, Gonzo.
Good to see you commenting again, though I can distinctly note the fish eye in your remarks. Speaking of which, how fares our finny friend with the sharp teeth, the one in a fight for his life?
12 - Lee Richards
Thanks, Baritone, for contrasting the huge difference between a sense of wonder, awe and reverence for the mysteries of the universe with mindless acceptance of religious fiction as fact, and blind adherence to doctrines and dogmas created by a priestly class in order to control others.
13 - gonzo marx
no word on our Shark, Ruvy...keeping the fins crossed in Hope for the Best
be Well
Excelsior?
14 - Baritone
Ruvy,
I would suggest that it is you who are blinded by the glaring light of religious enslavement. Religion turns us away from thought and reason. It requires its adherents to forego doubt and questioning. The true believers of every faith including yours are unable to see beyond the limits of their particular dogma. All other possibilities are without merit.
What would you have people like myself invest our faith and trust in? That you can have faith or trust in a god who creates imperfect creatures and then proceeds to judge us for eternity for those very imperfections is beyond me. Such a god would be a game player, batting us about for his amusement.
Baritone
15 - Baritone
Les,
In the early stages of civilization religion was science - an attempt by man to explain the unexplainable which was pretty much everything.
But early communities were formed not owing to a common religion, but rather a common need to work together for survival - to live a safer, more productive life. The development of rudimentary religion came after - perhaps not long after, but after.
And yes, man created gods, certainly not the other way around. The sun, the moon, the stars, the wind, the mountains, the trees. It took a while to come around to the notion of god and man having the same "image."
Baritone
16 - Baritone
Lee,
Your take on the Einstein quote is exactly what struck me about it. There certainly remains a great deal which we don't understand. Einstein obviously understood that, but had the sense not to take any "leap of faith" that the answers were to be found in a god. While he did not embrace atheism per se, it would not be accurate to say that he was a deist either. He looked upon the universe with awe simply owing to its complexity and vastness. Einstein had no use for traditional religion nor did he find an active, personal god plausable.
Baritone
17 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
As I told you, Baritone, I won't argue religion with you. You have set up your own "straw man" and proceeded to knock it down, thereby convincing yourself of your rectitude. It isn't my job to convince you of anything.
In my experience, I've seen prophecy come true in my life, and continue to see it coming true. The key point here, and I speak as a former agnostic, is that I did not seek to see prophecy coming true. I was not looking for proof of anything. I was content to maintain myself with a "theological shrug". I had tied up the loose ends that I saw, or at least I thought I had.
But, it seems, prophecy came looking for me to see it. In the end, all I can really argue from, should I choose to, is that which I've seen, and that which I've trusted others to have seen.
It is really all that simple. Logic and reason gets you only so far in deciphering the phenomena around you. After a while, you realize that something else is required to get the whole picture. That something else is faith and trust - NOT RELIGION!
You unwisely mistake rabbis and priests for wisdom, and an institution, religion, for faith.
Thus, you are blind.
18 - Leslie Bohn
Faith is belief without proof, or in the case of Judeo-Christian-Muslimism, belief despite ample proof against.
No thanks, Ruvy.
Faith's EXACTLY why there are bullets flying around your head right now. It's also why you fervently and constantly wish the deaths of others whom you consider to be less than human.
This is vile.
Your comments about "prophecy," on the other hand, are hilarious! Tell us more, you crazy Isreali Dan Brown!
19 - Baritone
Ruvy,
I don't quite understand your comment about rabbis and priests and their connection with wisdom. I find no wisdom amongst the lot of them.
Religion is the manifestation of faith. You may separate them in your own mind, but with respect to what is happening on this planet day to day, it is those having faith in a god who have created the plethora of religions and erected the temples, synagogues, cathedrals and churches. Again, you may hold yourself above all that, but most don't. And it is largely those who embrace a particular religion who are ready and willing to murder all the infidels who don't.
I'm not sure just what you mean by a "straw man."
I believe I have pretty well discerned the true fallacy of faith and its consequent ruination of human dignity and identity.
I do, in fact, have faith and trust in human intelligence and faith that on balance, most people will carry out their lives morally and ethically. We often let ourselves and others down, but usually not from any proclivity for evil. Rather, it is simply human frailty - the manifestation of our imperfections and lack of mutual understanding. No god is going to provide that for us. If there exists any entity which could be construed as a god, it has long since lost interest in anything we are doing here on this little speck of a planet.
Baritone
20 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Tell us more, you crazy Israeli Dan Brown!
If I were only as rich as Dan Brown - though, in my opinion, he is a one book wonder.
Faith, Leslie, is the reliance on something because it has occurred in the past. I have faith that the sun will rise in the east, for example. My landlord has faith in me that the dated checks I've given him will not bounce, for another example... Do note that the example that does not rely on human action can be relied on much more!
What you call "faith" is really trust in an event without proof that it will occur, and that is what you rail against.
In addition, in your comments you conflate religion with faith and trust.
As to the bullets that are not whizzing around me that you refer to, you are right to assert that this is as a result of religion - and wrong to assert that it is the result of faith, for the reasons delineated above.
In this instance, the Wahhabi assert that all have to abide by their religion or die (that "all" includes you, by the way). We Jews are especially at fault - we succeeded in creating what the Wahhabi have had to buy - a working country.
Religion, specifically the tenets of the Wahhabi religion, are what are at fault in the conflict here. While Moslems may have not interpreted their own scripture properly with respect to Eretz Yisrael (and most Jews are blissfully unaware of that fact), that has not been the driving force for war here; absent the guns and gold of the ibn Sauds, most qadis, sheikhs and imams could be talked into seeing things differently. The Wahhabi, who are not really Moslems at all, have been the driving force for war.
Frankly, I would be shocked if you had the knowledge of either religion or politics to understand what I have just said...
21 - troll
Hashemites Go Home!
(...better graffiti for a better world)
22 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Baritone,
Let's take your comments piece by piece.
I don't quite understand your comment about rabbis and priests and their connection with wisdom. I find no wisdom amongst the lot of them.
Exactly!! Merely having a cleric's collar does not make you wise.
Religion is the manifestation of faith.
No. Religion is a way of life, complete with laws, a doctrine behind the laws, enforcement mechanisms and an arrangement for governance. In Europe, North America and Australasia, the arrangements for governance have been separated from the religion in order to prevent a constant state of civil war, but this concept, which you know as the separation of church and state, does not apply to many parts of the rest of the world, or applies in a far less clear way. Do note that the most barbaric and genocidal states to arise in the last Christian century, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Communist China, arose without reference to religion, and in opposition to it. So so not assume that separating religion from an arrangement for governance is all that civilized or advanced.
...it is largely those who embrace a particular religion who are ready and willing to murder all the infidels who don't.
Here you refer only to the Church Militant (both Catholic and Protestant flavors) of centuries past, and the Wahhabi today. Islam recognizes those who believe in one G-d and requires a tax upon them for not being Moslems.
I'm not sure just what you mean by a "straw man."
Reread you comment #14, particularly, the second paragraph.
I do, in fact, have faith and trust in human intelligence and faith that on balance, most people will carry out their lives morally and ethically.
And here we get to the heart of the matter. The source for the rules that constitute moral and ethical lives is either the Torah for the Abrahamic religions, the Vedas for the various branches of Hinduism, the principles laid down by the Buddha for those who adhere to Buddhist teachings, etc. No scientist in a lab coat came up with a moral code. Period.
No god is going to provide that for us. If there exists any entity which could be construed as a god, it has long since lost interest in anything we are doing here on this little speck of a planet.
Don't assume what you don't know. At least have the sense to say, "as far as I understand," before making such an assertion.
23 - bliffle
Man invented Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny to manipulate children. If you do not see that man invented gods to manipulate people then you are blind.
24 - Baritone
Ruvy,
You claim to "know" all of what you speak.
Were there not faith in something outside ourselves, there would be no religion. What you are asserting makes no practical sense.
We atheists always get Stalin, Hitler and Mao thrown in our faces as if they are definitive of anything. In each of the above instances, religious fervor for god was simply replaced by the state. It came down to the same thing - ardent glorification of a nebulous "something" other.
What you refer to as my "straw man" argument is not so. You choose to take it that way because it goes counter to your view. That does not render it false.
Well, you are correct about the lab coats. They didn't come along till much later. However, what you refer to as regards moral codes, yes the various religions throughout history have codified much of what is considered to be acceptable behaviour. However, they did not invent morality. Humans lived by them long before anyone began scratching them into stone tablets, parchment or rice paper. No god spoke to those people. They learned how best to live, again, in order to have a better chance for survival. People living and working together toward a common goal generally made life easier for all.
By the way, you seem to think very highly of yourself and what you seem to presume to be your superior knowledge of religion and politics. Must have been in some of your realized prophecies.
Baritone
25 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
...you seem to think very highly of yourself and what you seem to presume to be your superior knowledge of religion and politics. Must have been in some of your realized prophecies.
I can see where this comment
Frankly, I would be shocked if you had the knowledge of either religion or politics to understand what I have just said...
- aimed at Leslie Bohn, and not you, would cause you to make the comment italicized above. Mr. Bohn has been rather condescending elsewhere as well as in his comment here, and my own condescension toward him was aimed at this, not anything you have written or said. You do not strike me as being condescending or contemptuous unless you perceive a person is being that way towards you.
----------------------------------------------------
Were there not faith in something outside ourselves, there would be no religion. What you are asserting makes no practical sense.
The nature of knowledge requires faith. When I look at this computer screen, I do not "know" that it is in front of me, I perceive it to be so, and in order to do that, I have to have faith in my perceptions. I have faith in these perceptions because I have been perceiving in roughly the same way for five and a half decades. That is the point of the definition of "faith" I gave you. Faith is a method of processing experience so that you can reasonably expect what will come next. It is based on what has already occurred.
Trust is a concept in the future tense, as in "I trust that you will go to work tomorrow."
Unless you are person who has perceived G-d around you all of your life (and there are such people), believing in G-d at all requires trust, not faith.
You have to trust in a Force that you never had evidence of in the past. Usually this trust is part of the doctrines that are behind the laws that religions promulgate for moral and ethical living.
But often, and to many people, these doctrines seem empty and hollow - particularly when the "officers of the faith" do not practice them themselves (fill in your own choice of preacher or cleric here) - and the religion seems reduced to just so much hypocrisy. Having been an iconoclast all my life, I know this feeling well.
If you bear in mind that religions are ways of life - not merely assertions of "I believe" - you'll see that being a person who trusts in G-d is very different from one who follows the rules of a religion. They can be the same, but more often than not they are quite different.