Some Observations

[cnorman18]

This forum seems to me to be dominated by two general camps or schools of thought; one is that of agnostics and atheists of varying degrees of conviction, and the other is of Christians of varying denominations and views, with a rather higher proportion of conservative/fundamentalist Christians than one might find elsewhere.

As a liberal Jew and a former Christian, I often find myself standing between these two camps. I have had both bouquets and brickbats thrown at me from both sides, so I have no particular axe to grind between them.

Here are a few things I think I have learned in my peculiar journey from Methodist minister to Jewish convert and layman, and from reading and posting on this forum. These are not, or at least not necessarily, principles of Judaism; they are my own, and they might be as wrong, or as right, as anyone else's ideas. I just hope that others find them interesting and perhaps worthy of discussion.

----

It is not possible to believe anything as an act of sheer will.

It is possible to pretend to believe something long enough and hard enough to finally succeed in fooling oneself; but at some level, one still knows that that is not belief, but just a habit of pretending.

It is also possible to resist and suppress the impulse to believe, and that resistance can become the inverse of the above; a professed unbelief that has become little more than unexamined habit and a refusal to consider the alternative.

Both of these attitudes are motivated by a fear that one might be wrong, and have more to do with ego than with either actual, considered belief or unbelief (I do not say that either all atheists or all believers fit this description).

A possible sign of that fear is when one is angered by contrary opinions, as opposed to merely feeling puzzlement or disagreement.

Another sign of such fear is the impulse to ridicule or demean those with whom one disagrees. For Christians, that impulse is diametrically opposed to the ideal of Christian love; for atheists, it is diametrically opposed to the ideal of disinterested and unemotional logic.

The whole question is of less importance than we normally give it, anyway. What one believes is less important than one's character, which is chiefly observed in how one treats others.

One's character is not dependent on one's beliefs. There are saintly atheists, and there are contemptible believers. Most of both are neither.

Some varieties of religious belief tend to make their believers worse, rather than better, people. Some approaches to atheism can do the same.

Certainty that one's own beliefs are the only correct and acceptable ones is a sure sign that one is becoming worse and not better.

Certainty that one is more spiritually advanced, wiser, smarter, and/or more morally upright than others is a sure sign that one is less so on at least some of those counts, and probably much less so. The more certain one is that one is better, the more probable it is that one is worse.

If one thinks that religion is more about what one is against rather than what one is for--that is, if one spends more time concerned with sins rather than good deeds--one has not quite grasped the point of religion. Any religion. That is true of atheists as well as theists; if all you can see is the bad, you're not really looking.

Fundamentalism is not the only form of theism. It is not even a particularly good example of it. Again, that mistaken belief can be found on both sides.

Theology, even the question of whether or not there is actually a God, is at bottom an intellectual chess game. Interesting and absorbing, and in its own context important; but essentially a thing of theory and the mind.

Ethics, by way of contrast, is a physical fist fight. Blood and bone and flesh are involved, and the consequences are real as opposed to hypothetical, immediate rather than in an indeterminate future.

The hungry, homeless man on the corner, or the violent criminal lurking in its shadows, are not at all interested in what you believe, but in what you are going to do. I cannot help but believe that God, if there is one, shares their perspective and not ours.

"Do as you would be done by" is the highest law, higher even than "Love God" (which is why Jesus mentioned it first). It's higher than "Believe in God." Higher than "Know the Truth." There is no law higher.

It is a law that applies to people of any belief or none, and is as logical as it is holy.

And compared to how well one lives up to that ideal, nothing else really matters very much.

That's my take. Whaddya think?

[achilles12604]

This forum seems to me to be dominated by two general camps or schools of thought; one is that of agnostics and atheists of varying degrees of conviction, and the other is of Christians of varying denominations and views, with a rather higher proportion of conservative/fundamentalist Christians than one might find elsewhere.

As a liberal Jew and a former Christian, I often find myself standing between these two camps. I have had both bouquets and brickbats thrown at me from both sides, so I have no particular axe to grind between them.

Here are a few things I think I have learned in my peculiar journey from Methodist minister to Jewish convert and layman, and from reading and posting on this forum. These are not, or at least not necessarily, principles of Judaism; they are my own, and they might be as wrong, or as right, as anyone else's ideas. I just hope that others find them interesting and perhaps worthy of discussion.

----

It is not possible to believe anything as an act of sheer will.

We agree.

It is possible to pretend to believe something long enough and hard enough to finally succeed in fooling oneself; but at some level, one still knows that that is not belief, but just a habit of pretending.

After re-reading this a few times, I get what you are saying. If people want to believe bad enough for whatever reasons, they can almost make themselves believe it. "There were only 4 lights, but I honestly thought I could see 5"

It is also possible to resist and suppress the impulse to believe, and that resistance can become the inverse of the above; a professed unbelief that has become little more than unexamined habit and a refusal to consider the alternative.

I agree with this as a possibility.

Both of these attitudes are motivated by a fear that one might be wrong, and have more to do with ego than with either actual, considered belief or unbelief (I do not say that either all atheists or all believers fit this description).

And I agree with this totally as well.

A possible sign of that fear is when one is angered by contrary opinions, as opposed to merely feeling puzzlement or disagreement.

And we agree here to an extent. I would say there are other reasons for anger, like pain in ones past, but fear is certainly a possible motivator for anger.

Another sign of such fear is the impulse to ridicule or demean those with whom one disagrees. For Christians, that impulse is diametrically opposed to the ideal of Christian love; for atheists, it is diametrically opposed to the ideal of disinterested and unemotional logic.

And for still others it is diametrically opposed to an honest search for truth which they claim is their goal. It is much easier to become angry and lash out than to critically examine yourself, which can be very scary and painful.

The whole question is of less importance than we normally give it, anyway. What one believes is less important than one's character, which is chiefly observed in how one treats others.

On this we totally agree 100%.

One's character is not dependent on one's beliefs. There are saintly atheists, and there are contemptible believers. Most of both are neither.

It is a matter of the heart.

Some varieties of religious belief tend to make their believers worse, rather than better, people. Some approaches to atheism can do the same.

Christian science, nihialists.

Certainty that one's own beliefs are the only correct and acceptable ones is a sure sign that one is becoming worse and not better.

As is lashing out for it is a sign that you are digging into what you already believe and it is being threatened.

Certainty that one is more spiritually advanced, wiser, smarter, and/or more morally upright than others is a sure sign that one is less so on at least some of those counts, and probably much less so. The more certain one is that one is better, the more probable it is that one is worse.

Oh but I know everything so this is only true for others, and not for me.

If one thinks that religion is more about what one is against rather than what one is for--that is, if one spends more time concerned with sins rather than good deeds--one has not quite grasped the point of religion. Any religion. That is true of atheists as well as theists; if all you can see is the bad, you're not really looking.

I wanted to bold this because it is such a profoundly simple statement which is so true. Jesus understood and taught about this.

Fundamentalism is not the only form of theism. It is not even a particularly good example of it. Again, that mistaken belief can be found on both sides.

True.

Theology, even the question of whether or not there is actually a God, is at bottom an intellectual chess game. Interesting and absorbing, and in its own context important; but essentially a thing of theory and the mind.

when contrasted with what you DO you are correct.

Ethics, by way of contrast, is a physical fist fight. Blood and bone and flesh are involved, and the consequences are real as opposed to hypothetical, immediate rather than in an indeterminate future.

The hungry, homeless man on the corner, or the violent criminal lurking in its shadows, are not at all interested in what you believe, but in what you are going to do. I cannot help but believe that God, if there is one, shares their perspective and not ours.

"Do as you would be done by" is the highest law, higher even than "Love God" (which is why Jesus mentioned it first). It's higher than "Believe in God." Higher than "Know the Truth." There is no law higher.

"I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman] whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him [her]. Will he [she] gain anything by it? Will it restore him [her] to a control over his [her] own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj [freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions?
Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away."

- One of the last notes left behind by Gandhi in 1948, expressing his deepest social thought.

It is a law that applies to people of any belief or none, and is as logical as it is holy.

And compared to how well one lives up to that ideal, nothing else really matters very much.

That's my take. Whaddya think?

I think your insights are profound and I agree with many of them. I think you have a good grasp on both God and humanity.

[Confused]

Given my state of perpetual confusion, I can say that while I understand the message you are getting out there, I have to say I don't agree. I think that if one is going to give a fair assessment of their beliefs, then one has to consider what their beliefs mean and don't mean. What they are and what they aren't. The good and the bad. Simply wanting to believe in something doesn't make one believe. I have tried this. Doesn't work.

If one thinks that religion is more about what one is against rather than what one is for--that is, if one spends more time concerned with sins rather than good deeds--one has not quite grasped the point of religion. Any religion. That is true of atheists as well as theists; if all you can see is the bad, you're not really looking.

I wanted to bold this because it is such a profoundly simple statement which is so true. Jesus understood and taught about this.

I think the statement Achilles has considered so "profound" is merely an illusion. If one is honest with themselves, then they cannot see what something is without seeing what it isn't as well.

[cnorman18]

Given my state of perpetual confusion, I can say that while I understand the message you are getting out there, I have to say I don't agree. I think that if one is going to give a fair assessment of their beliefs, then one has to consider what their beliefs mean and don't mean. What they are and what they aren't. The good and the bad. Simply wanting to believe in something doesn't make one believe. I have tried this. Doesn't work.

I thought that was pretty much what I said?

If one thinks that religion is more about what one is against rather than what one is for--that is, if one spends more time concerned with sins rather than good deeds--one has not quite grasped the point of religion. Any religion. That is true of atheists as well as theists; if all you can see is the bad, you're not really looking.

I wanted to bold this because it is such a profoundly simple statement which is so true. Jesus understood and taught about this.

I think the statement Achilles has considered so "profound" is merely an illusion. If one is honest with themselves, then they cannot see what something is without seeing what it isn't as well.

Nothing wrong with seeing both. Notice what I said; if ALL one can see is the BAD, one doesn't get it.

It would be just as wrong to see nothing but good, but that problem seems to be much less common.

Let me be specific. On the theist side, I am annoyed and puzzled by the tendency of fundamentalists to spend most of their time talking about SIN. Thousands of words about what will send people to Hell--but I can't remember reading a single one about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, or sheltering the homeless.

On the atheist side, I read a lot about how horrible religion is and about all the terrible things that it does--but very little credit given to GOOD people and organizations who are and were good because of their faith (Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, the Salvation Army).

Like I said: Nothing wrong with seeing both sides. It's when you see only one that your vision is flawed.

[Confused]

Given my state of perpetual confusion, I can say that while I understand the message you are getting out there, I have to say I don't agree. I think that if one is going to give a fair assessment of their beliefs, then one has to consider what their beliefs mean and don't mean. What they are and what they aren't. The good and the bad. Simply wanting to believe in something doesn't make one believe. I have tried this. Doesn't work.

I thought that was pretty much what I said?

If one thinks that religion is more about what one is against rather than what one is for--that is, if one spends more time concerned with sins rather than good deeds--one has not quite grasped the point of religion. Any religion. That is true of atheists as well as theists; if all you can see is the bad, you're not really looking.

I wanted to bold this because it is such a profoundly simple statement which is so true. Jesus understood and taught about this.

I think the statement Achilles has considered so "profound" is merely an illusion. If one is honest with themselves, then they cannot see what something is without seeing what it isn't as well.

Nothing wrong with seeing both. Notice what I said; if ALL one can see is the BAD, one doesn't get it.

It would be just as wrong to see nothing but good, but that problem seems to be much less common.

Let me be specific. On the theist side, I am annoyed and puzzled by the tendency of fundamentalists to spend most of their time talking about SIN. Thousands of words about what will send people to Hell--but I can't remember reading a single one about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, or sheltering the homeless.

On the atheist side, I read a lot about how horrible religion is and about all the terrible things that it does--but very little credit given to GOOD people and organizations who are and were good because of their faith (Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, the Salvation Army).

Like I said: Nothing wrong with seeing both sides. It's when you see only one that your vision is flawed.

I had to reread this a few times to understand it a little better. I guess I don't see the predominate sides displaying what you suggest because I tend to ignore the extremists. Granted, I like to play devils advocate at times to challenge beliefs. But when I look at beliefs, my view is a balance of effects. Yes, I can acknowledge the good and the bad that has been done under the guise of faith. But my final overview is that the bad heavily outweighs the good and while the bad needed faith to happen, the good did not.

I had a long edition in regards to Mother Theresa etc.. but really, I don't think it would have been appropriate so I edited it out.

[cnorman18]

Given my state of perpetual confusion, I can say that while I understand the message you are getting out there, I have to say I don't agree. I think that if one is going to give a fair assessment of their beliefs, then one has to consider what their beliefs mean and don't mean. What they are and what they aren't. The good and the bad. Simply wanting to believe in something doesn't make one believe. I have tried this. Doesn't work.

I thought that was pretty much what I said?

If one thinks that religion is more about what one is against rather than what one is for--that is, if one spends more time concerned with sins rather than good deeds--one has not quite grasped the point of religion. Any religion. That is true of atheists as well as theists; if all you can see is the bad, you're not really looking.

I wanted to bold this because it is such a profoundly simple statement which is so true. Jesus understood and taught about this.

I think the statement Achilles has considered so "profound" is merely an illusion. If one is honest with themselves, then they cannot see what something is without seeing what it isn't as well.

Nothing wrong with seeing both. Notice what I said; if ALL one can see is the BAD, one doesn't get it.

It would be just as wrong to see nothing but good, but that problem seems to be much less common.

Let me be specific. On the theist side, I am annoyed and puzzled by the tendency of fundamentalists to spend most of their time talking about SIN. Thousands of words about what will send people to Hell--but I can't remember reading a single one about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, or sheltering the homeless.

On the atheist side, I read a lot about how horrible religion is and about all the terrible things that it does--but very little credit given to GOOD people and organizations who are and were good because of their faith (Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, the Salvation Army).

Like I said: Nothing wrong with seeing both sides. It's when you see only one that your vision is flawed.

I had to reread this a few times to understand it a little better. I guess I don't see the predominate sides displaying what you suggest because I tend to ignore the extremists.

This is a good thing, but I don't know how you can do it here. One trips over them on every thread.

Granted, I like to play devils advocate at times to challenge beliefs. But when I look at beliefs, my view is a balance of effects. Yes, I can acknowledge the good and the bad that has been done under the guise of faith. But my final overview is that the bad heavily outweighs the good and while the bad needed faith to happen, the good did not.

I had a long edition in regards to Mother Theresa etc.. but really, I don't think it would have been appropriate so I edited it out.

Maybe you should have left it in. Your closing remarks reminded me of the following paragraphs, which I posted on another thread. Please bear in mind that these remarks were addressed to another (and rather more extreme) poster and not to you.

Well, I'm not here to speak for Christianity; especially in the Middle Ages, Christians were no friends to Jews, and I'm the first in line to say they have a lot of blood on their hands. But before we get to Judaism, we might want to take a little romp through history and notice a few positive things.

Organized and scientific agriculture, not to mention the science of genetics itself, was the invention of Christian monks. Medicine, whether you begin with the Apollo cult of Hippocrates or the medieval monk-physicians, the science of medicine owes a lot to religion, too. The first hospitals were Christian institutions. So were the first organized charities. The abolition of slavery in Europe was the result of a movement spearheaded by Christians on specifically Christian grounds. The Civil Rights movement in the US was similarly Christian in its primary leadership--Dr. Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister, and all of his work was done as an explicit expression of his Christian faith--and many Jews were also involved; two of the three civil rights workers killed in Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1961 were Jewish men from New York, and the NAACP was founded and financed with Jewish money. The list could go on, present and past. The idea that Christians, and Christianity itself, have done nothing in the service of humanity is simply a falsehood and a canard.

Now I've been in exactly this sort of exchange many times before, and your lines at this point in the play usually involve finding a way to explain away, dismiss, or discount the role of Christianity in all these things. We usually start with the fatuous and irrelevant statement that all of these accomplishments could have been achieved without religion being involved.

Well, that is true; and if my grandmother had had four wheels, she could have been a dumptruck.

They could have been, but they weren't; and the refusal, on the part of those who claim that the influence of religion is and always has been invariably and entirely bad, to give the smallest credit where credit is inarguably due is disingenuous and transparent, and a pretty good example of exactly the kind of dishonest, doctrinaire, one-sided, and absolutist thinking that atheists usually object to in Christians. The proposition that Christianity has never contributed anything to the world is patently false. Period, full stop.

Now about Judaism; take a squint sometime at the list of Nobel prize winners in the sciences. You will see an astonishingly high proportion of Jewish names, considering that Jews constitute about 1 1/2 % of the world's population. Look at your local telephone book under "Physicians," and figure the percentage of Jews in any specialty you choose. Pick up any scientific, medical or mathematical journal you like and play "count the Jews" with the list of editors, contributors, or footnoted authors. You will see the same disproportionate numbers. Why is that?

An enormous number of Jews enter the sciences. That's been true since medieval times. Far from a tendency "to stifle critical thinking and the progression of knowledge to discover the unknown about our universe"

, Judaism reveres and celebrates learning and research in every field, and always has.

In the Jewish school where I formerly taught, male students were required to wear yarmulkes--skullcaps--in every class; not just Jewish studies, but in math, science, English, history, and all the rest.

Now this was a Conservative Jewish school; unlike Orthodox men, Conservative men do not wear yarmulkes all the time, but only when at religious services, praying, or involved in any other sacred activity.

Do you see the point? To Jews, all learning is sacred. Jews do not resist science and progress and critical investigation and research; we participate in them, and are often at the forefront of such research. Considering our small numbers, Jews have probably, on a per capita basis, made more scientific breakthroughs and discoveries, found more cures for more diseases, and contributed more to scientific knowledge and progress than any people on Earth.

Whether religion has given more good or evil to the world is a matter about which we can disagree, of course; but it is a moot question anyway. Religion--believing in and worshiping some god or other--has been an integral part of what it means to be human throughout human history, at all times and in all places. The belief option of "none of the above" has been chosen by very few until, say, the Enlightenment or perhaps the Renaissance. In a real sense, it was hardly available until then. One might as well ask whether alcohol or fire has contributed more good or evil; they have been part of human existence almost as long.

Anyway; thanks, as always, for your thoughtful and well-written remarks.

[Cathar1950]

Given my state of perpetual confusion, I can say that while I understand the message you are getting out there, I have to say I don't agree. I think that if one is going to give a fair assessment of their beliefs, then one has to consider what their beliefs mean and don't mean. What they are and what they aren't. The good and the bad. Simply wanting to believe in something doesn't make one believe. I have tried this. Doesn't work.

If one thinks that religion is more about what one is against rather than what one is for--that is, if one spends more time concerned with sins rather than good deeds--one has not quite grasped the point of religion. Any religion. That is true of atheists as well as theists; if all you can see is the bad, you're not really looking.

I wanted to bold this because it is such a profoundly simple statement which is so true. Jesus understood and taught about this.

I think the statement Achilles has considered so "profound" is merely an illusion. If one is honest with themselves, then they cannot see what something is without seeing what it isn't as well.

I concur!
...And if all you see is the “good” in your religion, you are not really looking either.
Usually it is called rationalizations or indoctrination. Read until you believe is the usual apology which only sets them up for some kind of biblical indoctrination trapping them for more “spiritual” understanding that amount to nonsense and out of context passages as if they were “truth”.
Religion has a social and personal function and it can come in many flavors but its success depends on its usefulness. The only theme running through the Bible is the one of obedience to those that claim they have the “Word of God” while presenting nothing but conflicting messages from many opposing points of view. Most of us could write a better book about God's will and be clearer without having to resort to presenting myth as history. I can only imagine that Bible-Believing Christianity will spread among the world's people that are ignorant and desperate, where social conditions are intolerable.
Those that find some good will do so at the expense of most of the Bible and would probably do better as enlightened humanists. They will outgrow the Biblical Christianity and embrace a higher human morality and meanings. This seems to have been the attempt of 19th century liberalism while they found the “good” in the myth as they tried to make some “spiritual” sense of the writings the could no longer assume where from God, they also left people empty except those that sought liberation on human terms and added life to an empty book religion.