Deep Roots of Religious Orthodoxy

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

normally, i don`t like to cut n` paste, but i thought this might help with the discussion:


carlin says: ........... ``When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there`s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever `til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He`s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can`t handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!

But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you`d expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would`ve been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say ``this guy``, because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he`s at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn`t give a shit. Doesn`t give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn`t give a shit, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.

And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can`t see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I`m big on that. If I can see something, I don`t know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we`re not setting people on fire simply because they don`t agree with us.

Sun worship is fairly simple. There`s no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don`t have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I`m unworthy. Doesn`t tell me I`m a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn`t said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don`t pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn`t presume on our friendship. It`s not polite.

I`ve often thought people treat God rather rudely, don`t you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It`s not nice. And it`s no way to treat a friend.

But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you`d really like to fuck that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you`d have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn`t in God`s Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn`t it seem a little arrogant? It`s a Divine Plan. What`s the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and fuck up Your Plan?

And here`s something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren`t answered. What do you say? ``Well, it`s God`s will.`` ``Thy Will Be Done.`` Fine, but if it`s God`s will, and He`s going to do what He wants to anyway, why the fuck bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn`t you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It`s all very confusing.

So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don`t pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he`s a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn`t fuck around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.

For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog, Joe Pesci straightened that cocksucker out with one visit. It`s amazing what you can accomplish with a simple baseball bat.

So I`ve been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don`t. Same as God, 50-50. Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit`s foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat`s testicles, it`s all the same: 50-50. So just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.

And for those of you who look to The Bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that`s a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I`m sure you`ll like that. Then there`s Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn`t care for, by the way. And finally, I`ve always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? ``All the king`s horses and all the king`s men couldn`t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.`` That`s because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no God. None, not one, no God, never was. In fact, I`m gonna put it this way. If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody`s okay? All right, tell you what, I`ll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a God, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I`ve got a little cramp in my leg. And my balls hurt. Plus, I`m blind. I`m blind, oh, now I`m okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!``

[At the same time, spirituality is almost a human instinct. Science cannot be a substitute for religion because religion satisfies the spiritual needs of the humankind. Majority of the people will always believe in one form or the other of religion. ]

How did you conclude this from your article, since you put this sentence in the conclusion?

Spirituality, whatever it is, does not depend on religion or god(s). People contemplate their spirituaity by concentrating on any object, number, name or most of all, self. For example Zen Buddhism hardly cares about Buddha and ignores god altogether. That has made it actually most popular among highly educated and accomplished individuals who are willing to convert.

Why do rewards, redemptions and salvation are promised mostly after death? Reminds me of some unknown third rate poet who said: ``merna paRay agar tou nijat hae kaisi?``

sameer,

Yarr, give it a rest. The author has clearly stated spirituality in the conclusion, and did not refer explicilty to God, although it is obvious the author is trying to draw a connection between thestic faiths. Anyhoo, concentrating on the `self` for the sake of `englitenment` is as non-worldly as God. One is a self-centered spirituality, the other selfless.

A good excercise in `ratio-cracy`, but it is hardly to have any impinge on theocracy because, perhaps, the life is not a rational existence. Theocracy has its inherent contradictions no doubt but these very contradictions provide a fuel for its bullshit function which is the essence and driving force for human life. The Qurani Allah says, ``Be hard against the disbelievers and meciful among yourself``. This provides the man the licence to be mrciless and to have free play to his inherent barbarism. So Judaic God forgives murder by Moses because the victim is not Israili but an Egyption thus breaking his own law about invioable sanctity of human rights (Haqooqulibaad). Ghalib , the Aarif, says: -

Latafat beqasafat jalwa peida kar naheen sakti
chaman zangaar he aaina-e-bade bahaari ka

As I understand, it means that contradiction or dialectics is the sine qua non for any `jalwa` or existence. We will have to believe in Iblees as a complement of Allah. Rest later on.

Another article forcing the lessons learned from Christianity on to Islam and other religions. I was afraid of this; the ignorant virus prevalent in the America is now airborne. Maybe it has something to with the soil or the food, I don’t know but seriously people need to start thinking for themselves.

Christianity is not Islam nor is Christianity other religions. So lessons learnt from Christianity can stay with Christianity no need to force fit the circle in the square. Oh and when talking about Islam it is a good idea to actually learn a little about it.

Who is this author anyway?

Regards
Homer

I think the main driving force, the prime mover behind the `reason` is the word `why`. So the question is can morality based on reason replace morality based on religion. In other words the pertinent question that one must look into is : Can we be good without God? ``sure we can`` an anthusisatic rationalist would say. But I would tell him - not so fast. As the word `why` is the raison d`etre of reason yet the same word `why` is the anathema of reason as well. For example consider theis dialogue:

``I want to kill this person``

``why?``

``because he annoys me``

``but killing a person is wrong``

``why?``

``because hurting someone is wrong``

``why?``

``because if you will hurt someone, someone else may hurt you as well``

``what if I hurt someone and don`t let someone else hurt me, would that be ok then?``

``we don`t live in a jungle``

``are you sure?``

So here goes the whole morality, which was based on reason, down the drain. No one can really answer the question why is it wrong to hurt someone. How is it different if I rape a woman or just insert my finger in her mouth. By way of reason both acts are same. Apart from these hypothetical examples today we face the real life dilemmas when it comes to issues of marriage, homosexuality, child sex, child pornography, and incest. The reason asks ``why they are wrong?`` and reason fails to answer. Theoretically, if we all become absolute rationalists (like Mr. Spock for example) would there be any place for morality in this world. Emotionality is an integral part of morality whereas reason is an anathema to emotionality - e.g an act of rape or sodomy from rational point of view is nothing but an interaction of meat with other meat or intermingling of fluids and the emotional stigmatization that is attached to these acts have no place in the world based on rational thinking.

Ask this question again ``Can we be good without God?`` the honest answer is the right answer.

Re:#7
Urstruly, you are assuming that good behavior stems primarily from a moral framework. There is also a legal framework that a society sets up to regulate behavior in order to sustain and prosper as a society. Anyone not respecting that gets punished such as getting fined or imprisoned. The objective of a legal framework is not just imposing morality but ensuring the smooth functioning of society. For e.g. if people have conflicts and start killing each other, life would come to a standstill. Hence people are forbidden to do some things because the alternative is to face punishment. Secular societies believe that such a legal framework is sufficient to regulate behavior. Orthodox societies do not belive in that.

In some societies, the legal framework is itself based on religious underpinnings such as Shariah or even the US constitution which has its roots in Judeo-Christian values. If a case is made that the purpose of religion is to inspire good behavior, I have no argument against that. However, it is not necessary that the only way to accomplish ``good`` behavior is via religious brain-washing. Setting up an enforceable legal framework should be good enough.

#1, Hamidm2: Good work!
#2, Kaurasach: Belief in personal God helps outlast adversity.
#3, Sameejb: No religious discussion, this included can be logical.
#5,teshah: Science is inching towards the understanding of life. Did you see 4-hour series on life by NOVA?
#6,_Homer: What is the harm in trying to see interconnections?
#7,urstruly: Yes, God and goodness have no connection.
#8,amit: Good. Agree but boring!

The moral argument for the existence of God has been thoroughly discussed by numerous philosophers. It has its own weaknesses. If goodness is the creation of God then who is responsible for the creation of evil, disease and sickness? As a matter of fact the prevalence of evil in the world substantially weakens the argument for the existence of God. To illustrate my point, I produce in the following an extract from Bertrand Russell`s essay: Why I am not a Christian?

``One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God`s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God`s fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God`s fiat, because God`s fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it. ``

Belief in God is a maatter of faith with the majority of the believers. As I said in my essay there will always be millions of people who`ll believe in God. The intent of my essay was to show that the traditional faith in Christianity and many other religions has become outdated. These religions need to be reinterpretted and brought in line with the modern knowledge and experience. Many rationalists will continue believing that such an exercise is futile and waste of time.

Mohammad Gill

So as usual we are bogged down by the question `What is good and what is bad or what is moral and what is immoral`. I think culture is more important than religion in determining good or bad. For example, in Pakistani culture morality is confined to sex only which is not an issue at all in the west. The burning issue today in Pakistan is Karo kari - killing of rebellious women for shame (gheirat). People are least concerned whether it is allowed in Islam or not. It is in any case a matter of life and death for them. Even prophets could not change the culture of a given society. Again, Islam says interest or usuary means war against Allah and his Prophet but who cares. They have the rituals like `Namaz`, `Umra`, `Haj` etc. to purify them and ensure heaven with hoories for them.

Orthodoxy is an obssessive compulsive disease (OCD) -- more limbic than cerebral -- should be treatable by psychotropic drugs....

Urstruly,

You`re right in the sense that those who believe in good without God are in fact deviating from the emperical style thinking and thinking much more in tune with those who are believers.

Any talk of good or bad may not be related to God, but it is in fact a similar discussion.

No species on the face of the earth likes to self distruct to the point of extinction. As immune system shows, species try their best to survive by creating defensive mechanism. It requires sefishness of the genes of each species to create defensive mechanisms and survival instincts. The mass murders, holocaust or decimation of native American population do not fall in this category becasue destruction was not against another species and human existence was not at stake.

All through the evolution of our species, we have created certain value sytems out of instinct for the survival. We are not born sinners but born survivors. Whatever helps us survive better is adopted in value system (morals) at every stage of our existence. The ten commandments existed and practiced long before Moses went up the hill. All religion did was to attribute them as god`s order or commandments. You see neither god nor religions are needed to live by certain set of values which help us survive batter as species. For example the role of mother has always been very important due to the long infancy childhood periods. No culture, religion or people have thrown them out after birth of babies. It just does not make sense.

Neither god nor religions is necessary for survival, which means that living by certain non-destructive value system. People can associate on these value systems, develop bonding, creating social constructs to further strengthening bonds such as marriage, inheritance, culture, nations, race, caste or an organization.

Where does spirituality, christianity or islam fit in it? Religions are not innovative beyond innovating something like god from thin air. In computer terminology, it is more like creating a folder in a world of files. Existing files are put in the folder with some spicing up so that people who wish to read these files go through the folder route only. Because a file can be opened as easily and actually more quickly, the party of folder has been making all kind of myths, fears, rewards, threads, murders, bribes and plain old marketing called proselytizing. Why do one has to look into first Jesus teachings, then Quran than 5 hadith, then 2 out of 5 hadith deemed more authentic, then local priest or mullah if loving a child is the purpose. Just open the file created by basic human goodness necessary and complementary to survival instincts of homosapiens-sapiens?

It is totally bizarre to make a case that without spirituality, religions and god, world would be a terrible place to live for human beings with rampant crimes without the fear of retribution. Or that we would be still living in the stone age or any less developed than today.

One of the technique for attracting and keeping in check the people now used to opening file through folder route is posthomous rewards becasue by 3000 years ago, human species was smart enough to account the rewards if there were any in this lifetime. As human became more and more aware of the zero reward in this life except statistical prbabilities (as hamidm2 post indicated), more and more stress needed for afterlife rewards. That is why, Islam promised more in finer details than Christianity and Judaism. It is rather modern that afterlife rewards started losing importance becasue the life as soul (separated from organic human body) became more and more a myth.

So what can a folder do? They can provide services, sales, 2-for-1 sales and using some of the earnings to create some rewards for the faithfuls in the forms of schools, hospitals, charities etc. As a last resort, they can refer to spirituality as a necessity (again without any evidence or proof) and then link spirituality file to the folder.

So the bottomline is that collating and creating folder is gone too far, when everything necessary for a good moral life is present in the form of files since ages. Additionally files can be edited easily, as the time changes, compared to folders.

amit & vertex

amit`s argument is invalid because in the world where we live in the legal framework exists because a set of moral values demands it. In other words legal framework only codifies a set of values. It doesn`t work the other way around that we have moral values because a legal framework demands it. Take for example, marriage. Marriage is an ethical and religious value that has been codified into a legal framework. The people who are questioning the institution of marriage argue that since marriage is a religious value and since in a secular society there is no place for a legal framework that is derived from a religious value therefore state has no authority to interfere in it. Extending this argument they further question what is wrong between the union of same gender partners. legally their point is valid but our moral values do not accept that. Similarly, another recent case of `pledge of allegiance` where American people pledge there allegiance to `one nation under God`. Legally, the circuit courts decision, that this pledge is unconstitutional since a secular polity cannot pledge its allegiance to dogmatic figure, is correct. But our moral values are not ready to accept that. The congress and senate were quick to pass legislation to overturn the circuit courts decision. Now what we have here - a secular polity where people pledge their allegiance to God. But it is anyone`s guess that such people are on losing ground. What was their moral value yesterday is not today. I don`t see where can we draw a limit. If yesterday child marriage was perfectly legal, today it is not, and tomorrow, incest will be legal (as it already is in several states). Yesterday suicide was illegal today it is legal. Once prostitution was frowned upon and today pension and retirement benefits are being demanded for sex workers. These people already lost in Europe because in its very ideology secularism is anti-religion; its is an anathema to the very notion of dogma. Seculeism is not accomodative as one is usually lead to believe. It is absolutely exclusive. In the name of fairness and justice, thus, for a rationalist, secularism or religious orthodoxy should be mirror image of each other - where everything is equal but opposite. This then begs the question why one system is `wrong` and other is `right`.

Re:urstruly#15

A legal framework is more than just codifying ethical/moral values, although it might be partially inspired from that. A legal framework codifies what is necessary from a functional perspective, in order that a society will survive and for that matter, our species will survive. All societies need to create a legal framework to ensure smooth functioning where people can survive and prosper. Why do people want to survive and prosper? Because it is in our genes to do so, otherwise we wouldn`t have evolved to this point. Modern religions have been around for only a few thousand years, but humans have been around for 50,000 years. Without modern religions around in the first 47000 years, how did humans survive and prosper without committing mass murder or other destructive activities?

Marriage is not just a religious concept, it is a very functional concept, because it ensures proper procreation of the species. Without marriage, men may not take care of offspring since they are not sure if it is their own, which endangers the survival of the offspring (at least in the past, human females did not have the means to take care of children by themselves). With marriage, a man is reasonably sure that it is his own genes that are getting passed on and surviving. Hence he will take care of the woman and the family. Even if you take the most remote tribal society that had no contact with the external world, you will find the concept of marriage. Now religion came up and adopted this functional concept and made it a religious obligation to strengthen the argument further i.e. God wants you to be monogamous and raise your family. Of course, in the modern times, when a woman can survive on her own, raise children by herself, obviously the functional need of a construct like marriage is diminishing. That is why, people are questioning it and arguing for same sex marriages etc. The functional need for marriage is lesser now given the success of our species. Hence the moral value of marriage is also diminishing.

Similary Islam prohibits eating pork. This is obviously a functional concept, because pigs used to carry all kinds of diseases, hookworms etc. in the past. If you ate pork, you were likely to fall seriously sick or even die. Hence it was a functional thing to avoid pork. Then Judaism and later Islam adopted this functional concept and created a religious concept i.e. God doesn`t want you to eat pork.

So my argument is that functionality came first, because as a species, with our physical limitations, we couldn`t have survived without basic functional concepts. This functionality drives legality and strongly influences morality (of course, there is more to morality based on spiritual needs). Secularism derives its basis from legality that depends on functionality to ensure proper functioning of society and survival of our species. Religion also derives a large amount of its basis from functionality, rather than the opposite. Orthodox people believe that all functionality came BECAUSE of relgious values i.e. religion taught us right from wrong. Actually we always knew what was right in order to survive as a species and it is religion that adopted that knowledge to provide divine sanction and ensure compliance by everyone.