God and Man - or not.

[DG]

Posted: 6/3/07 at 8:23am

Christopher Hitchens has a book out titled “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” an all-out attack on theism. I haven’t been particularly drawn to run out and grab it, as the excerpts I’ve read so far leave the impression that he’s basically screaming out some well-worn accusations without really delving into rationed rebuttal – and I’m a pretty avowed non-theist myself. While I may applaud the confrontation of the issue, I hope for a more in-depth analysis of the resultant reality.

And now, his brother Peter has written a response to the work – apparently, they come from decidedly different perspectives. Perhaps I am incapable of reading these types of things anymore with any semblance of objectivity, but it seems to me that Peter ends up falling back on that old canard of “without religion there can be no morality.”

I’ve never bought that ideology before, and I don’t buy it now. It seems as easy to me as this. A fundamental driving force in our experience of life is the avoidance of pain. And if we can have an understanding of how that avoidance of pain makes us feel (‘good’ as opposed to ‘bad,’ for lack of better terms,) and if we can have an emotional interest in the experience of others (the experience of ‘love’ being the utmost example,) then it should be an easy step to desire the removal of pain for those around us, as well. And that desire alone is enough to form a moral foundation from which we can all work to maintain peace and balance.

Are there those who choose not to recognize this capacity within themselves? Sure – but I don’t see the prospect of religious influence being the sole imperative to avoid that pitfall. If anything, I’ve seen the influence of theology strengthen and deepen the concepts of separation – a far cry from any unifying or protective force.

Hitchens vs. Hitchens.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 6/3/07 at 8:27am

No, religion is the not the sole source of morality. There are many, many, many, many people who are religious with not a hint of morality in them. Now, there may be some immoral people that once they found religion, it helped them to become more of a moral person, which happens a lot too. It's more of the person themselves and their surrounding (Nature vs. Nurture) that determines how moral someone becomes. Sometimes religion helps . . . sometimes not!

Updated On: 6/3/07 at 08:27 AM

[DG]

Posted: 6/3/07 at 9:00am

*sigh*

I unfortunately have to leave for the day, so can't nudge this discussion (if there is even going to be one.)

But I want to leave with one thought that is something intrinsic to understanding my perspective - I believe it IS possible to be a theist without the codifying limitations of man-made dogma (religion.)

[polly2]

Posted: 6/3/07 at 9:08am

My input is simply this: My beliefs are my own. I don't belong to churches simply because of the people. Religious people tend, IMO, to be hypocrites. And I don't agree with the majority of their teachings, especially the more strict ones like the Catholic church. The one that really irritates me is: G*d loves everyone...as long as you aren't (insert demeaning content here) whether it be gay, lesbian, interracial, whatever.

And I have to agree with Spidey, religion is not the source of morality. People are.

Updated On: 6/3/07 at 09:08 AM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/3/07 at 11:48am

gets me to the church on tiiiiiiiiiime.

oh wait, this isn't (contrary to the title) a thread about bowie.

i disagree as well that without god there can be no morality. that kind of statement is a blanket dismissal of humanity's ability to enforce simple judgement's upon itself without them being dependent upon some outside influence.

is it wrong to kill because god says so or because it is simply wrong to take a life? people will associate religion and belief structures with morality, but morality existed before religion and i believe it exists inside each of us regardless of our belief or disbelief in an deity.

i've always been of the opinion that whatever helps you sleep at night and allows you to get through your days in a relatively peaceful manner as long as you're not hurting yourself or anyone else is a good thing whether that is a belief in god, or in ufos, or the innate spirituality of tree frogs or whatever. the problem is always when a person or persons believe that others must adhere to their beliefs. it's intolerance even when those practicing it are doing so for the best reasons in their hearts. many of them truly believe that they are trying to help others by showing them where they are wrong and how they could be doing better if only they believed this way or that way.

that's where i have a problem. i'm a catholic. i'm a big fan of the ritual and while i am at odds with the catholic church on many issues, i have taken the core practices as my own because they afford me a measure of peace in my daily life. i've never tried to convert anyone (my wife's a presbyterian) nor do i feel that catholicism is the best way for everyone. i just know that it helps me sleep better at night when i've communed with god in my way and that happens to be through the rituals off the catholic church. it's no better or worse than any other religion as far as i can tell or even atheism for that matter as long as the person practicing those beliefs is getting the peace of mind that they seek.

unfortunately, too many people are threatened by the idea that there might be another way than the way they believe. i really think that is at the core of most religious intolerance. too many people are unwilling to accept that there might be more than one right way because it would force them to look at their own belief structure with an eye towards the idea that it could be wrong. i'm comfortable enough with who i am and what i believe that i'm not threatened by the idea that my way might not be the only way because to me, it's just my way.

i'm rambling at this point and remembering my writing teacher's adamance that i use an outline, but this has gone on longer than i thought.

i think that when people try to use religion (or politics or any belief) to fill a hole that exists in their lives for some reason, that it becomes impossible for them to see any other way because they've put all their chips on this one thing. if it's not right then their whole lives lose meaning and they are adrift. and that's f*cking terrifying. eh, like anything, i think overindulgence in religion and overdependence upon it is harmful. i depend on god, but i've always believed the old adage that god helps those who help themselves. so if more people were willing to help themselves by opening their minds a bit and looking to religion as a way to help themselves but not as the only way to do so, we'd all be a lot better off.

is religion itself bad? no. but people can be. especially when they pervert religion as a means by which to divide others. practice whatever helps get you through the night, but afford others that same right and don't feel so damned threatened if they don't agree with you.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 6/3/07 at 12:00pm

my assertion is this: societies have to regulate their members somehow, and whether we pay homage to it or not, western society is based on teachings that Christ gave (sure, an Anglo-Saxon perversion of it, but still). Prior to Christ, the only morality was made out of the fear of cultural shame. Now, our morality considers the experience of others.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/3/07 at 8:45pm

"Prior to Christ, the only morality was made out of the fear of cultural shame. Now, our morality considers the experience of others."

That doesn't add up. Prior to Christ, human morality was influenced by the experience of others, and the shame that came from "misbehaving"? But after Christ, morality is NOT about cultural shame but rather the promise of rewards in some mythical afterlife?

I dunno, to me it makes more sense to live according to a peaceful code within the huamn family. I had no idea that was so B.C.

DG, I recommend Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion," which is a restatement of similar principles from the Age of Enlightenment crossed with a little bit of his (much) earlier "The Selfish Gene."

Or, if you want a sort of Cliff Notes version (quoted in "The God Delusion") reach for Sam Harris's "Letter to a Christian Nation."

It lacks C. Hitchens's alcohol-stoked rage.

One of the most useful phrases I got from "The God Delusion" was the fact that religions, ALL religions, foster in some way or another and to one degree or another "in group loyalty," which can be wonderful from those who draw strength from being liked by groups of aquaintances, but "out group hostility," and the list of problems caused by that in the world is nearly endless.

[DG]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 9:30am

papa - I've always felt that people turn to religion as a way to stave off the ultimate fear of death (or the 'unkown', however you want to look at it.) - which seems to be kind of what you're saying is the danger point for those who need it so desperately.

But I also feel that it was a realization of this desperate need that caused some men to use that fear to manipulate and control the population. I've always found religions to be more a political structure than anything else. And, no need to go into detail already covered, but your own particular brand has quite the history on that level.

Namo - I actually have had "The God Delusion" to read for awhile. I got side-tracked just before I got to it by "The Theocons," which then led to "American Theocracy". I seemed to have a need to focus on the immediate real implications in our own society first, rather than the overall human experience. But it is next on my list - I was drawn to it like a moth to flame the first time I saw it!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 10:19am

oh, i agree, dg. all hail torquemada. but i maintain that it's the practitioners and leaders that are flawed not the religion itself.

i know in some ways a religion is its leaders and practitioners in the real world sense, but me being the utopian that i am see it as separate from that.

on a broader level, namo, it's hardly just religion that promulgates the kinds of in and out politics that you mention, but pretty much any group of humans that includes more than three or four people.

i see that as a human interaction problem not a religious one.

[DG]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 10:23am

papa - I tend to agree, but religion does seem to be the tool most often used. Again, I think it's because they're tapping into ultimate fear - and that's the least likely avenue to get questioned.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 10:30am

did communism qualify as a religion?

[DG]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 11:04am

papa - there WAS a real focus on the atheistic angle - the 'anti-religion', so to speak.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 11:12am

i should hope so from my favorite gin-soaked former trotsky-ite popinjay.

[Jane2]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 12:16pm

DG- I was going to make a similar point. Religion helps many people get through life (and death). Their faith in the Bible, or whatever happens to be the base of a given religion, gets them through.

I wish I had such blind faith but I'm - well, is cynical the word if I consider the Bible something written by some guys who may or may not have made it all up?

Anyway, I think that whatever works for you is fine. I also think that religion has been and is the cause of many wars and only divides people.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 1:18pm

"But it is next on my list - I was drawn to it like a moth to flame the first time I saw it!"

It's perfect you should use that simile, DG, because the actual moth-to-flame evolutionary development is a point of illustration in God Delusion.

And papa, I totally agree with you about the "whenever three or more are gathered" concept of in-group loyalty and out-group hostility. That brings us back to my arguing a few years ago about how the sports metaphor is the worst thing that ever happens to a culture. The giant metaphorical "We're #1" foam rubber finger philosophy of life.

As if to perfectly illustrate my point, good ol' Elisabeth Hasselbeck during The Big and Final Split Screen with Rosie O (who, I've already mentioned in my opinion was the wrong and not the wronged party in that particualr beef) actually talked about a withdrawal timetable in Iraq being like "If you're on a team and you tell the other team when you're going to pass your football and then they know what your plans are and you'd never do that ...." which is, of course, not an exact quote but I tried to capture the essence. That's what it always comes down to and it's sickening.

If you paste on a layer of social control, not just the opiate of the masses stuff of sports, but REAL social control that religions exert, then it's not just sickening, it's dangerous.

[DG]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 1:21pm

"We're #1" foam rubber finger philosophy of life. -

I'm absolutely certain that shouldn't have made me laugh as much as it did - but it really falls in the category of 'if you don't laugh, you'll cry!'

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 1:24pm

If I add caps do you think I could copyright it?

The "We're #1 Foam Rubber Finger Philosophy of Life."

[DG]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 1:28pm

Honestly, I immediately thought of a bumper sticker.

Is there a sports team with a fish as its mascot?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 1:29pm

whose side are you on, namo? don't you love your country? how about getting with the program? why don't you jump on the team (no, no, not like that) and come in for the big win?

[tazber]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 1:33pm

This thread should be titled:

Alexyss and man - or not.

The Church is always looking for converts.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 1:35pm

there's the miami dolphins, dg. oh, right they're not fish.

[MotorTink]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 1:46pm

Florida Marlins?

[lildogs]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 1:47pm

papa--you typed the words right out of my post--whatever gets you through the night--that's the basis of all religions: to make the world less scary.

I see "good" religion as a way of fostering community; "bad" religion is control over its believers. Not alot of people are interested in the good kind--there's just no money in it.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 1:49pm

but even in that case, lil, it's the people, not the religion itself.

[lildogs]

Posted: 6/4/07 at 2:25pm

I don't necessarily agree papa. Many religions work on the philosophy that the church leaders "know" and that the "laity" must obey--for fear of eternal damnation. This fear keeps poor from challenging the divinity of leadership, which in turn controls the wealth and power. It is in the interest of church leaderships to keep their followers poor and ignorant--whether it's in rural Ireland, small-town Kansas or a Muslim village.

It's built into the Bible--the idea of male domination, submission to elders, a punishing god...all to keep the poor working folks in line and out of the pagan forest--cause god forbid they do things that FEEL good!