insanecarbonbasedlif's Journal: [Religion] Thoughts on readings (pt. 5)

Well, I'm about halfway through The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. Definitely a good read, very illuminating - a clarification is probably in order. He is not writing about religion in particular, just about the lack of science and skepticism among people in the USA. For obvious reasons, though, he's touched on religion a lot.

Anyhow, he presents more information that points to an anthropogenic origin for the Judeo-Christian Bible, mostly from things he mentions in passing that I then go on to research on my own. An aside, every time his statements have been confirmed by what I read from reputable sources at large. In particular, I learned some interesting things about the book of Deuteronomy (writing style, form, history about it's "discovery") that strongly point to it having been created during King Josiah's reign to bolster respect and obedience to his rule.

Growing up, I was taught that a world without a god and a book of revelations from that god was a world that was empty and senseless. This has been the complete opposite of my personal experience though - setting aside an assumption of a god or an absolute supernatural authority of any sort, I am finding more meaning in this world. Things are making more sense, things fall into place, priorities are clearer, and I honestly think that I am more moral (and/or ethical) than I was before. Maybe particular to the branch of Christianity that I grew up in was the doctrine that all Christians have true joy, and without their faith, there is no true joy and happiness in life. I have found this to be false, as well. I'm at least as happy as I was, and apart from struggles with dogmatic emotional extended family members, life is much more meaningful, and therefore much more joyful.

Absolutism and magisteria

[Ethelred Unraed]

I don't know exactly which branch of Christianity you were in, but from things you've said it sounds like you come from a fundamentalist Protestant church, possibly Congregationalist or Baptist or something along those lines.

I think it's interesting to note that most people I have gotten to know who are in a similar position to yourself are from exactly that background, where the church or group they were in made an absolute claim to truth in a way that refused to accommodate or accept science. (Anglicans

Re:

[loucura!]

I also notice that invariably activist atheists attack just that sort of belief and assume that all believers believe in just that way. This exchange between an Anglican priest and some atheist activists is a good example: The activists are unable to parse what he's saying because they keep making false assumptions about how he thinks and believes. They attack straw men.

Which, in turn, is why fundamentalist/evangelically religious persons call atheism a religion. It's really annoying, seeing the newly "conv

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

By the way, have you considered salvation through Jesus Christ?

/me scampers away with a naughty look

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[loucura!]

I don't join consumer saving programs, thank you.

Re:

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

Having experienced proselytizing from alternative medicine types, news junkies, stock trading addicts, democrats, republicans, environmentalists, animal rights activists, marxists, and a great deal more, who all engage, to some degree or another, in the attacking of straw men set up as the opposing side, I don't know that I could ever be comfortable considering that a uniquely religious trait.

Re:

[loucura!]

I don't know that I could ever be comfortable considering that a uniquely religious trait.

I don't believe that it is a uniquely religious trait. Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians do, however.

Re:

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

Yeah, I tentatively agree with Gould currently, and for what it's worth, I don't consider an anthropogenic section of the Bible (or even if it could be conclusively concluded that the whole Bible was created ad hoc by humans for human motives all along the way) to be a denial that it may have supernatural meaning, or at the least be inspiring to people. My conclusions about its value are strongly based upon its origins, and what I see as a lack of evidence of past or current supernatural involvement, but th

Re:

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

Replying to myself as a P.s. :)

I just read the "AskThePriest" article you linked to. Very good little read, and I agree with most of what David said. The last two paragraphs lost me though, because I think he makes a couple of errors in logic there.

I'd say there is. General logical principles indicate that a known principle be upheld until there is convincing evidence to the contrary. Theism (or sometimes non-theistic religion) is the dominant principle throughout human history. Until good evidence to the

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

As I understand it, he's using the term "known principle" incorrectly here. It does not simply mean that which is accepted by the majority of people. Quantum mechanics was a known principle before most people had heard of any of it's consequences, and they often rejected it. The truth of the matter is that neither dieties or the absence of dieties is a "known principle" in terms of logic. The burden lies on either side of that debate to prove their claim before they start calling it a principle.

For many

Re:

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

So the second prong is really quite weak if you familiarize yourself with the true nature of Christian mysticism.

I think you've misunderstood my point. People who state atheistic beliefs are more likely to encounter open social opposition (of all sorts) than people who state religious beliefs, even if their religious beliefs start to deviate from the mainstream.

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

Any minority of any kind faces that same pressure to conform. It is nothing unique to atheism. It doesn't make "belief" any more convenient. (Though many atheists do have a bit of a persecution complex. It's cool to be the outsider and all that.)

The point I was making is that within Catholic or Orthodox Christianity doubt is not only allowed, but celebrated, which contradicts the idea that Christians compel one another to believe.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

I have to agree with all your points, except the idea that it doesn't make belief more convenient - I think being part of a minority is definitely not as comfortable as agreeing with the majority position.

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

True, but it's also overrated. :-)

Consider that in the former Communist countries -- and in China -- religion is making a comeback, in spite of the fact that for decades, atheists and nonbelievers were (at least officially) in the majority.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

I don't consider an anthropogenic section of the Bible (or even if it could be conclusively concluded that the whole Bible was created ad hoc by humans for human motives all along the way) to be a denial that it may have supernatural meaning, or at the least be inspiring to people.

For what it's worth, one major criticism of the Bible that has been brought by skeptics, as well as by the Dan Brown crowd, is the notion that the canon of the Bible was somehow decided upon by a rather worldly group for worldl

BTW, apropos "Ask the Priest"...

[Ethelred Unraed]

This is the original vBlog post [askthepriest.org] that set off that exchange I mentioned above. It is very much worth a read and watch.

Cheers,

Ethelred