Comments on: How to Defend Religion?

By: TW

TW — Mon, 28 May 2007 21:02:08 +0000

I am not sure I fully agree with everything you have said here, however I do agree that tolerance is not something which can be considered virtuous in itself.

Also, I dont want to defend what Nick has said, but even after you accept tolerance is not a virtue, the implied tolerance of “each other” remains arguably virtuous.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 28 May 2007 13:55:00 +0000

Nick said (in part),
The element in common with religious-inspired mass murderers of the past is fundamentalism: certainty about what is true or right. That’s my theory. My only certainty is that uncertainty breeds tolerance. The world needs less belief, not more.

I reply: TOLERANCE IS NOT A VIRTUE. Shocked? Consider: If I say that I tolerate child abuse, you would not consider that tolerance a virtue because you find the object of my tolerance (child abuse) intolerable (unless you are a very sick person). Tolerance derives its value ENTIRELY from the objects of its toleration. So, as I say, tolerance considered apart from its objects is NOT a virtue.

If tolerance is not a virtue, then your value system collapses. You must KNOW what is virtuous so that you may “tolerate” it, and you must KNOW what is evil so that you will not “tolerate” it. You must have a secure basis for making such distinctions, and this basis should be universally applicable. Without this you have no right to criticize the actions of others, whether they be Communist, Christian Crusaders, the Armies of Allah, or Scientific Materialist.

While I am not “certain” (to use your word) that my worldview is entirely correct, decades of examination and comparison with other worldviews has given me a high degree of confidence that mine is essentially correct. So I reject your conclusion that the world needs less “certainty” or “belief.” People need to arrive at greater confidence through careful examination of evidence and reason.

I’m sure you all know who said, “the unexamined life is not worth living.”

By: peter

peter — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 19:07:42 +0000

The whole debate over the existence of God is pointless. Stop! Think in other categories – laterally!
Apparently, our brain patterns affect the way we experience “Life”. It seems that people who learn to let their thoughts settle and quieten have a higher happiness level (and tests have shown that brainwaves change). It is reported that they feel more “at one”: complete transformation in a positive sense seems to be possible. This seems plausible: we all know how excessive and uncontrolled thinking brings us down.
God, Allah, Buddha, Yahweh, Wakantanka, etc are, and always have been, nothing more nor less than human words to describe that Totality. Discovering this “new” state of mind is called by different names in Christian, Buddhist, and other traditions. “God the Father/Creator” is a metaphor, for God’s sake!
But people of many different religions tell us that the reality of that experience, and the beauty of life when we clean the “doors of perception”, are so amazing that they talk of them in terms reserved for the “Highest”, most special, transcendant. Exporing a state of letting go of ego-driven thinking is clearly mentioned by Jesus (why do so few Christians see this?), Buddha, and many other great “Pathfinders”. But our ways of thinking are very entrenched, so progress is usually slow.
Do we believe in the existence of this other “country”? Pointless to say, unless we make the journey, and don’t turn back when the going gets tough.
“Literal or not literal” doesn’t come into it! A map is a description – like a scripture. If you find the real place, you won’t ask “is this literally true?”!
May you all be happy!

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:40:36 +0000

TW March 30th, 2007 at 16:29 says:
‘The violence of the last century was not motivated by religion. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge and the other spectacular murderers of the 20th century were atheists’.
In response:
The element in common with religious-inspired mass murderers of the past is fundamentalism: certainty about what is true or right. That’s my theory. My only certainty is that uncertainty breeds tolerance. The world needs less belief, not more.

By: Heather

Heather — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:37:44 +0000

I think that you are talking about following a moral code rather than a religion. Agreed that being a quaker seems to be a lot more about inner experience and morality rather than worship, I wouldn’t knock it.

I think the point of the debate is whether there is a God in the general “divine being who created and rules everything” sense.

I could believe my shoe has an inner soul (lame pun)which created the universe and worship it. I could believe it gave me rules to live by and techniques for obtaining wisdom. They might even work for me, but it wouldnt make the shoe thing any truer.

By: Dave Trowbridge

Dave Trowbridge — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:33:57 +0000

I wouldn’t take Wikipedia as gospel on the Quakers (or anything else, for that matter). There are several things in that segment you linked to that I don’t consider correct, speaking as a liberal Quaker. But, because Quakers are historically suspicious of doctrine, that’s not surprising.

I agree that the Testimonies can look like doctrine, but they’re not. They might best be described as categories into which a Quaker fits the leadings he or she gets from God. For me, at least, God speaks in specifics (don’t buy sweat shop clothing, for instance), and then one fits that into a Testimony (the Testimony of Equality, or Community, perhaps) as a way of linking it to one’s whole web of meaning.

The interesting thing, at least from the standpoint of readers of this blog, is that there are actually non-Theist Quakers. We have some in our meeting. I don’t understand how that works, but at least a couple of them are what we call “weighty Friends,” so I don’t doubt their sincerity.

By: TW

TW — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:52:35 +0000

There is a strong argument that Buddhism doesn’t count as a religion. While there are some branches of religions which are more lax than others when it comes to having rules and doctrines from God to follow, they are generally the exception rather than the norm.

Quakers are not as different from other religions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends#The_Bible for example.

By: Dave Trowbridge

Dave Trowbridge — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:50:08 +0000

“Religion is built around doctrine and ‘rules’ which are claimed to be the word of God.”

Not always. The example that falsifies that statement is the Quakers–at least, the liberal and conservative branches of the Society. And there are branches of Buddhism that don’t fit that description, either.

By: wowser

wowser — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:50:49 +0000

i think all those devout people are crazy anyway.

By: TW

TW — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:16:10 +0000

I can understand that as being the reasons why a person remains in a religion, when their “intellectual” understanding says it is wrong – but as a reason to “justify” religion it pretty much escapes me.

There are many ways to have structure and tradition…

By: Gary McGath

Gary McGath — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:58:23 +0000

There are quite a few people who are in religion for something other than the belief. “Not taking it literally” describes most Pagans I know, and quite a few Jews. They just seem to want a system that gives structure and tradition to their lives, whether it’s based in fact or not.

By: TW

TW — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:16:49 +0000

I agree wholeheartedly. I am (oddly) constantly amazed that people will try to defend their particular brand of invisible friend by cherry picking which bits they want to take literally and which they don’t.

Personally, I find it easier to just think they are all deluded