s/o - modesty and culture

[albeto.]

I've heard Xtianity say that.

 

Amy, does Islam hold that way?

 

...but that isn't an accurate way to describe Jewish theology.

 

 

 

I cannot envision a (same) human way of living that doesn't mean one has to give up some things, and suppress (or redirect) some things.

 

Part of living in society is boundaries - where my rights leave off and yours begin.

 

...and part of being kind, decent humans beings means we learn to redirect certain natural impulses - impulses of anger or selfishness... it is part of being thinking beings, that we use our intellect and sense of desirable behavior to limit ourselves in some aspects.

 

I don't see this as a negative thing - but it sounds as if you do... or is it that you object to which things are limited, and on what basis?

 

 

This isn't unique to religion - when someone restrains themselves from acting unkindly, or grabbing something they desire from someone else, how is that not positive?

 

 

As with all religions, Judaism evolved in conjunction with the events that influenced the community. Contact with Zoroastrian religion, for example, introduced the idea of a dualism between good and evil in Judaism (I think you mentioned "yetzer tov, " good impulse, and "yetzer hara," evil impulse), as evidenced from the historical record. This battle between good and evil may not be big, it seems to be much more subtle than say the Evangelical Christian battle, complete with demonic attacks and devils infiltrating thoughts and such, but it's there, at least historically it has been taught and believed and honored as being true.

 

Earlier in this thread, you explained to me that your faith offers you a "framework that helps me to be my best and truest self... and that being that best and truest self is how I make my unique contribution to the world." In this way, your religion, the beliefs it teaches you to accept as true representations of reality, and the rituals that celebrate these truths, help you to be "good" as opposed to being "less good," which is presumably what would happen if you abandoned it. Perhaps it's a small contribution to this dualistic reality your religion teaches to exist, but it seems to be enough to encourage you to continue with confidence and purpose.

 

To clarify, I don't think redirecting certain impulses such as anger or selfishness is a bad thing, and I'm not sure from what you've interpreted that, but would not agree with that idea at all. I quite agree with you that in redirecting certain impulses we help assure a more stable, safe, enjoyable society. What I'm talking about with regard to irrational, externally imposed oppression is the kind of impulses like food and relationships. In what conceivable way would keeping a kosher home or wearing long sleeves in summertime objectively address applying patience and compassion? The two are objectively unrelated, and are related only through religious arguments. It's not the suppression of problematic behaviors that I'm addressing, it's the epistemology that suggests these behaviors are devised and sanctioned by an otherworldly entity that somehow knows better than we do. When a community accepts the idea that an otherworldly entity, one who cannot be seen, heard, felt, or communicated with in any discernible way, whose desires and intents are revealed through specially trained leaders, the community rationalizes the very problematic behaviors you speak against.

 

Yelling at elementary aged schoolgirls and calling her names on the street because she doesn't present herself modest enough to appease this otherworldly entity, risking the life of an infant by allowing a man to suck blood of the tip of his penis, disrupting public land to ensure a thinly veiled loophole allows people to practice their personal faith at an otherwise inconvenient time are all examples of ways in which this epistemology is used to rationalize disruptive and even dangerous behaviors. After all, how can one prove a little girl's school clothes are modest "enough," or that removing and sucking the blood off the tip of an infant's penis is even unjustified? Would it be justified in any other context? Can you imagine if I came here and said my neighbor hires himself off to snip the ends off non Jewish baby boys and suck the blood from the tips of their penises? It would be considered criminal behavior outside the context of religion, and the Jewish religion specifically. But the behavior would be identical, so what is it about the religion that makes the same behavior noble vs. creepy? If the only variable is faith, then what if my neighbor had faith in his practice? If the only variable is faith in an historically recognized religion, then what is it about the length of time of a belief that makes a behavior noble and not creepy? I argue the only difference is that one is normalized. We don't think about it, because traditionally accepted religious behaviors get a pass from the same measure of critical thinking as when applied to non religious behaviors. 

 

When we take the logical argument and extend it out along natural lines, we come to a point where we have to accept that either faith is evidence enough to justify a behavior or it is not. In my opinion, what this really means is divine revelation is believed to be more credible than objective information with regards to explaining the world around us, and consequently more adept at offering moral arguments. One problem we can see is that people who grow up where religion is normalized, and a religious epistemology is normalized and applied as being perfectly credible, tend to dismiss criticism against their own religion to some degree (subjectively determined, of course). Interestingly, traditionally accepted religious behaviors that had traditionally gotten a pass but face external and then internal pressure to modify, are then taught to have always been allegorical or symbolic.

 

The danger isn't in suppressing anger, the danger is in suppressing critical thought with regard to ethical and moral personal behavior and public policy in order to maintain a religious belief.

 

You are, I think, attributing motive again.

 

...and we have come full circle back to the original topic...

 

From my viewpoint:

 

My body (like every other body) is a container for my unique spark of Divinity.  ...to contain something holy is to partake of its kedusha (holiness), and means that it is to be treated with respect and honor.

 

Our way of dressing is to express that honoring.  ...it is analogous to the coverings we have for a Torah scroll... and the way it is covered in between uses even during the same service.

 

Does that mean I think someone who dresses differently is not respecting his/her body?

 

No, not at all.

 

I assume that s/he has his/her own ways of honoring his/her body.  I don't attribute negative motives, or assume any sexual (or other) intent.

 

But again, covering your body is understood to honor yourself by virtue of following the insights believed to be based on divine revelation. There is no objective correlation between clothing and honor. Honor is wholly subjective, a social construct, which is why honorable dress means something different from one culture to another. I suspect the origins of Jewish dress is rooted more in playing a role in identifying one as a member of a certain religion - it's tribalistic behavior with a modern flair. Instead of tattoos, scaring and piercing, clothing identifies "us" from "them." Religion makes this distinction based on unjustifiable claims, accepted as true without verification. These beliefs are problematic because they get a pass from critical thinking because critical thinking is potentially damaging to belief, at least in some measure. When beliefs are maintained without benefit of objective information, supported with reasonable, rational arguments, all hell can break loose. And it has. And it will again. And it is conceivably avoidable. I'm glad religions are finding themselves under external (which means increasingly internal) pressure to adapt to modern ethical codes, but holdouts do present a danger to society. I don't think you do, Eliana, but I see from you and Amy the same epistemology in this thread that does present a danger to society in general because it is the methodology from which dangerous ideas and practices are justified, sanctioned by religion, protected by the religious, devout and mildly alike.

[albeto.]

It doesn't need such a fallacy to point out that that, shameful, occurrence violates halacha.

 

...and there are many Jews who violate halacha... does it make sense to only mention that driving on Shabbos or eating pork is forbidden, and not to point out that shaming someone is far, far worse?  That, halachically, shaming someone is analogous to *murder*?

 

I don't say that someone who violates halacha is a bad person, or a bad Jew, but I do say that s/he is violating halacha, s/he is not adhering to our code of law and behavior.

 

...and it was denounced in Orthodox shuls around the world.

But it was supported by Orthodox communities, and other, similar behavior still is. That's the problem with the No True Scotsman argument here - for every one of your accusations that someone else violates halacha, they have the exact same authority to accuse you of the same. They use the same criteria to figure out what is halacha as all Jews, and because there exists no external, objective source by which one can confirm or correct a conclusion like this, they have as much right to claim halacha as you do. And therein lies one of the problems I have, and what I've been trying to get to: There is no credibility to these claims or the behaviors inspired by them. Because there is no credibility, my contention that your religion is misogynistic and oppressive is every bit as valid as your contention that it is egalitarian and empowering, by virtue of using the same criteria by which the Real Faith is decoded.

 

 

I can only live one life.  ...and any choice I make means I give up other options.

 

I do find intrinsic pleasure in my observances.  I see no lack in my life.

 

Yes, life is hard, but I don't think a bacon cheeseburger or a mini-skirt would have made a single one of my challenges lighter.

 

...what has made them lighter is trying to find a way through that takes my grief and pain, the challenge and loss and to build something.  ...to hold on to the love of family and community... to try to connect with kedusha so I can channel it into my life.

 

Are there folks who do all of that while munching on the burger and rocking the mini-skirt?   Of course.

...but that isn't my path.  ...and to take that path, I would have to suppress my own natural urges, my own deepest desires, my own truest satisfaction.

I have no issue the idea that certain rituals and behaviors are valuable because they create pleasing experience. I have no issue with perpetuating holidays and traditions in communities as we do in families. It's part of being social creatures. We do this naturally even in communities that shun these kinds of things (Ken Burns has a really interesting documentary about the Shaker community in New England that illustrates this). My concern comes from the fact that critical thinking and analysis of the meta-messages that inspire these behaviors are ignored because either the experiences are too valuable to risk giving up, or because one simply maintains a sense of ignorance about what the meta-message really is. In the case of the Abrahamic religions, the meta-message is that ethical considerations are justified within the context of Might Makes Right first, modified as society demands, maintained otherwise. 

 

 

 

Gaah!

 

No.  Not at all.

These ideas are all solidly reflected in the texts. Deuteronomy has an entire chapter dedicated to what will happen to those who are loyal to YHWH vs what will happen to those who are not. Believers excuse it (by suggesting it's not reflective of modern times, these are threats that no longer count, it's all symbolic anyway, etc, are all rationalizations I've heard so far), but that only exposes the fact that it needs to be modified in such a way as to be consistent with modern moral codes.

 

 

 

I don't see such a change.

 

I see strands of approach, I see a wide range of images and metaphors, but the foundation under all of that, some of which is part of the study of Kabbalah (mysticism), is in line with what I have been trying to describe... not some prettied up new model, but the original.

Nevertheless, history shows a different reality. History shows modern Orthodox Judaism developed in reaction to Reformed Judaism. I don't expect you'll agree, and in my experience most religious believers genuinely think they're following the most accurate representation of the original faith, but the objective data suggests a more plausible explanation - religious beliefs change, evolve over time, to maintain relevancy in an evolving society.

 

 

 

 

...which is why revelation was given to the people as a whole.  The experience at Sinai was for everyone, and the transmission of that experience is the heart of our Mesorah - not to one or a few, but to our whole people.

You're taking someone's word this is true. Unless you experienced impossible events in Sinai that directly oppose the objective historical record, with a man whose existence has escaped thousands of years of corroborating evidence, you can only assume this transmission of this experience is a fact. The only experience you can have had would be mental, based on the imagination, not on any tangible events you could have experienced personally. 

 

 

Let's pretend for a moment they were.  That we had some wild archeological discovery that matched up with some pieces of that narrative...

 

...okay?  Then what?

 

The next step would be to point out that proving Moshe existed, that certain natural (?) disasters occurred, etc wouldn't prove Divine involvement... yes?

 

Can you imagine an archeological find that would change your opinion on the subject?

 

We could wonder off into historical and archeological discussions, if you'd like, but I don't think it would help our core discussion.  (though I am certain it would be enjoyable!)

Of course I can imagine archeological or historical evidence that would support the stories. Pottery left in Sinai with Hebrew writing on it, Egyptian historical records of these events, anything extrabiblical that would corroborate these claims. I don't mind wandering, but unless there exists some evidence that has escaped historians and other researchers, all that's left is accepting these claims on faith alone. If that's the case, there's no more reason to accept these stories as true than you would accept any other stories of religious heroes as being true. In short, you do so because it's familiar, it's normal. It's not a coincidence people generally believe the religion in which they grew up and were surrounded by is the right religion. It's not irrational to conclude that basing and protecting personal and public moral codes in honor of historical events that never existed is unjustifiable, especially when they inspire cruel acts against people. 

 

 

Those parts of the text exist, but when they are looked at alone, without the Oral Torah, without the rest of the picture, without the discussions of allusion and layers of meaning - including to mystical pieces, then it is like looking in a fun house mirror rather than seeing an accurate reflection... not upsetting or painful... more like 'where do I even start?'

 

To take a much simpler quote - 'ayin tachas ayin' and eye in the place of an eye (an eye for an eye)

The Oral Torah clearly explains that this does not mean removing someone's eye, it represents a financial penalty.

 

Why doesn't it just say that?  (A question often asked in these cases)

 

...there are dozens of responses to that, each bringing out a different aspect, a different way of looking at it.

 

...there's a beautiful (traditional) one that Tikkun (a non-Orthodox, progressive interfaith publication) draws on in this lovely little article

 

...and this process, the drawing out of the layers of meaning and interpretation, is integral to understanding the Jewish approach to our texts, and to our lives.

Your explanation for the "eye for an eye" expression can be corroborated by sources outside religious lore. Trends of certain expressions and linguistic habits support your claim that this expression isn't meant to refer to physical punishment but financial/property replacement. But then, this isn't an idea that requires religious faith to develop or support. What I'm suggesting is that those who conclude differently about the Jewish religion do so because they have also taken into consideration the texts in conjunction with the Oral torah, within the "rest of the picture," as applied against the backdrop of discussions regarding the many allusions and layers of meaning. In other words, they use the same criteria you do to discern the true faith, they simply come to a different conclusion. The problem is, there exists no objective source by which you can determine which conclusion is more accurate. You're right, but so are they.

 

 

 

 

 

Again, I am grateful for your bluntness, your honesty.

 

Sometimes to criticize beliefs *is* to criticize the individual, but I don't find that hurtful or offensive. 

 

...and, yes, some of my responses are deeply personal and emotional, but your disagreements and critiques even of those deeply personal things aren't offensive or hurtful to me.  They might not always be comfortable - seeing oneself through another's eyes is rarely that, but I am putting them out here for discussion, they are, therefore, fair game.

 

...though I do appreciate the gentleness with which you are being so candid.  I don't feel you are pulling your punches, but it feels... like a gentlewomen's match... the kind of sword fight where one party stops to let the other pick up her sword...

^_^

[albeto.]

:iagree:

 

Add yourself to that list, albeto. You've been very gracious and your questions and comments have been very polite and non-judgmental. :)

 

Thanks, Cat. That's really nice to hear you say.

 

(I didn't think anyone else was still reading this anyway.)

[Catwoman]

Thanks, Cat. That's really nice to hear you say.

 

(I didn't think anyone else was still reading this anyway.)

I'm still lurking. :)

 

I don't have any information to share, but I'm learning a lot from the discussion.

[albeto.]

When I live my life so that every aspect -  from waking up in the morning, to each bite of food, to the way I speak to others - is bound into a framework & focuses on making each piece a holy thing, then I can better see the value/holiness/Gdliness in each aspect, I attune myself to an approach that makes me more mindful, more focused...

 

I don't know what that does to my soul.  There are a number of metaphors/images/analogies which explore different aspects... the simplest things to say is that using something strengthens it.

 

...and I see that in my life, physically, mentally, and spiritually.

What I hear you say is that these religious behaviors produce specific effects in your self-awareness, your consciousness is affected, and consequently this affects you positively in an emotional way. There is no evidence it affects your soul one way or the other. 

 

 

 

 

I said I see, perhaps, a false dilemma in your assertion that it would be wrong of your to appreciate the positive things religion has brought about because there are so many negatives that have also come from religion.  [i'm sorry if I am misrepresenting you, please correct me if I am]

 

I could see that dilemma if you were choosing whether or not to allow religion to exist, or whether or not to financially or politically support religion, but it seems to me that you undercut the core of your argument, and make it harder for many people to hear you when you take this particular stand... and I don't see the downside of focusing on what you also said - that you see religion as intrinsically neutral, something that can be used in positive or negative ways.

 

Religion as a methodology of thinking, it is a tool. It is as neutral a tool as a hammer. A hammer can be a very useful tool in building a house, but it can also be a very destructive tool when applied with the same force against a skull. The hammer itself isn't the issue, the way in which it is used is. The way in which it can be used can be good or bad, to put it simply, and so in the same way I think of religion as neutral.

What I'm suggesting is not the problem of religion, but the problem of maintaining and honoring an inaccurate, unreliable epistemology - religious thinking. When a rational methodology is suspended for the sake of a magical methodology, the morally neutral tool is then subject to all kinds of things, good or bad. When it's used for good, people attribute the goodness to the tool. When it's used for bad, people attribute the badness to the person holding the tool. This hypocrisy is what I and other people not emotionally invested in believing a particular religion see, but people who are invested have naturally developed a blind spot to this.

 

To be sure, religion itself isn't the invention or cause of this blind spot, it's a naturally occurring phenomenon in the human brain whenever a strongly held conviction goes against another strongly held conviction. In this case, the strongly held conviction that religious claims are credible and inspire good, goes against the other strongly held conviction that tyranny and cruelty is bad. I suspect people don't hear what I say because I'm addressing this very blind spot. The brain is a powerful organ, capable of all kinds of fantastic feats of mental ability (many that escape our awareness), including accepting and denying certain pieces of information for the sake of preserving the overall bodily health. What I mean by that is cognitive dissonance is a coping mechanism. It's a necessary process. It does present challenges in these kinds of discussions.

 

I oppose support of religion for many reasons, one is summed up by Sam Harris, a neurologist and author of Letter To A Christian Nation, and The End of Faith,

 

Doesn’t it matter what people believe about the nature of reality? Doesn’t the nature of reality itself matter? If the basic claims of religion are true, the scientific worldview is so blinkered and susceptible to spiritual modification as to render the whole enterprise ridiculous. If the basic claims of religion are false, most people are living in a state of abject confusion, beset by absurd hopes and fears, and tending to waste their time and attention—often with tragic results. Is this really a “false dichotomy†[referring to the idea that science and religion can in principle coexist]? (link)

 

I don't support religion financially or socially (well, financially I do contribute to the 70+ billion dollars tax exemptions given to religious organizations every time I pay my taxes). I don't support religious thinking because it's detrimental to society. We live in an era where our technology can save lives, but instead is used to increase territory based on some outmoded moral code supposedly delivered by ancient mythological characters. We live in an era where our knowledge can be used to explore untold fascinating mysteries of the natural world, but instead is used to spy on our own people in case someone is a "them" in hiding. We live in an era where information could contribute to justice in remarkable ways, but instead invest in privately run, for-profit prisons that produce a rape culture inside that would blow away anything a university campus should worry about. We do these things because we're protective of our magical thinking. We do these things because we don't want to give up the illusion that if we are not in control, an omniscient, omnibenevolent being is. The kind of thinking that inspires you to feel good preparing for Passover is the kind of thinking that inspires a religious leaders to convince women not to safely and reliably  prevent having unwanted children, even to the detriment of the individual, family, and society. It feels good to do what's right, what helps others. And when this knowledge supposedly comes from divine revelation, there exists no accountability outside what the public will tolerate. Sadly, the public has traditionally been indoctrinated to value this magical thinking, to trust the authority of religious leaders, to trust one's personal interpretation of events based on personal emotional experiences. 

 

 

 

 

Albeto said: "Nevertheless, religious beliefs have been systematically protected from criticism across the globe and throughout the centuries. It's even protected by the individual who desires to maintain their faith. It is protected from criticism both formally and informally."

 

 

I think, perhaps, this might be the core of what you are battling.

We as a society are battling this. We have political leaders who genuinely believe scientific facts are in reality elaborate lies told by Satan himself to dupe millions of people for the sake of obtaining more souls to torture for eternity. We have political leaders who genuinely believe climate change has nothing to do with chemical changes in the atmosphere and has everything to do with Jesus coming back. A full quarter of Americans believe Jesus is coming back within their lifetimes, and this inspires their private behavior and contribution to public policy. There is a grand conspiracy theory between good and evil in our nation that is not only accepted as true, is formally written into many of our laws. This is a battle we all face, as the grand conspiracy of other religions inspire measures against us, and our own grand conspiracy theories create a hell on earth for others. Not only is the public largely unaware of this, but we are putting ourselves at risk because we're relying on a faulty epistemology to guide our actions.

 

 

 

 

I'm not seeing that.

Moshe never existed.

 

No Moshe, no law delivered by divine revelation.

 

No divine law, no external source of morality.

 

 

Nevertheless, the Law will be used as the external source of morality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does it make scientific approaches irrelevant when I don't use them to analyze poetry? 

 

...or to understand a Beethoven sonata... in the latter there is a scientific approach to music, but I have yet to see one which enhances my musical experience... they are intellectually and scientifically useful and fascinating, but if I tried to use that approach to appreciate the sonata or (hypothetically since I don't play) to play it, it really wouldn't help.

 

My best friend is a professor of philosophy - when she discusses her approach to that field, it is fascinating... and when I dabble in philosophy I try to take a philosophical approach... I don't think a scientific one would help me get more out of Hegel.

 

I don't see different ways of gaining insight as somehow diminishing each other.

I'm not suggesting people ought to use a scientific approach to analyze poetry, but to ignore the scientific approach when explaining the effect reading poetry has on the brain is to ignore the only methodology that has proven to be reliable.

 

 

 

[albeto.]

That society gives precedence to religious claims is an issue with society, not with religion.

 

...and societies that have banished religion have been just as prey to faith based thinking... only with human or ideological sources rather than divinities.

 

the problem you see isn't intrinsic to religion.

 

Agreed. The problem we see isn't intrinsic to religion. However, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that religion answers to no objective source for credibility. There exists no accountability, which contributes to the very tyranny it sanctions. Even a benevolent tyrant is a tyrant, and morally unjustifiable according to the modern ethical standards we demand to be employed elsewhere. Because religion is such a powerful influence in the behavior of individuals and collectively, it contributes to the kinds of public policies that are problematic, policies that aren't modified when new information comes in but only when [if] there's sufficient internal pressure to evolve. I don't take issue with religion for the sake of taking issue with religion, I take issue with oppressive beliefs rationalized and even internalized, promoted as being good, protected against criticism. 

 

 

 

Albeto said: "In short, progressivism is good for humanity. Well, in my opinion anyway."

 

 

 

 

Quoting this so we can emphatically agree on something other than mutual respect.  :)

 

I have a feeling we would emphatically agree on much more than we disagree on.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

[Would you mind, honey, not using that particular way of referring to my G-d?  I'm okay with the other ways you've done it, but this one is very uncomfortable for me.]

 

Okay. 

 

 

 

It is clearly not useful to you.  I hear that.  ...and I hear that you consider thinking in a non-scientific way to be denying the truthfulness of the scientific approach.

 

I respect your viewpoint, but I do, I have, found my faith useful in navigating my human experience.

 

It's not just denying the scientific approach, it's advocating the idea that the scientific method (observation, collection of data, analysis of data, experimentation, falsification, peer review, and the like) are less reliable than interpreting one of thousands of ancient texts, each of which claim to have the inside scoop on truthiness. I'll ask again, not just of you but anyone still reading, can you think of an example of a scientific theory (an explanation of an observable phenomenon) that has been credibly replaced by a religious one? 

 

I would argue that it's not the religious explanations that are useful, but the practices that promote useful qualities like cooperation, a sense of unity, compassion, justice, a sense of community between yourself and those you care about, from your immediate family to your community at large. The underlying quality that the religious claims support are qualities that can be, and clearly are found outside your religion, and even outside any religion. Your religion may emphasis values like respect and honor in such hard to ignore practices like abstinence in the marriage bed, but respect and honor are not religious qualities, they are human qualities. I understand they are helpful to you, and I don't mean to suggest they aren't. I'm just trying to explain how that doesn't promote any reason for respect in my opinion, because the other side of the coin shows the destructive qualities of religion.

 

These destructive qualities can, and should be analyzed, corrected, modified when new information comes in, but they aren't until internal pressure to evolve creates a threat of loss of members. When a religion is no longer considered relevant, it evolves. It happened in the history of the Christian community, it happened in the history of the Jewish community, it happened in the history of the Muslim community. All religions evolve, adapt, and modify their teachings to maintain relevancy in society, otherwise they fade away. No religion has remained the same since it was undeniably parted from the original religion that spurred it. And when today's version of Orthodox Judaism becomes irrelevant, as it will within a few generations, it too will evolve to accommodate the demands of the believing community. And the believing community will likely think they too have the original faith. Essentially, the idea that you find your religious explanations useful for navigation doesn't speak to their accuracy. It speaks to their adaptability. 

 

 

 

 

It is an entertaining article, but an (interesting) theorizing about anthropomorphism and superstition doesn't speak to anything I've learned or experienced (though it does intersect interestingly with When They Severed Earth From Sky - which I think you'd enjoy, especially the volcanic explanation for the pillars of fire and smoke).

 

Good to know. :)

 

 

 

 

  

 

Leaving aside perception of enslavement or lack thereof, can one imagine freely given cooperation, even between beings of unequal power?  ...how and why would that happen?

 

There are many models for how cooperation (of a sort) can be compelled - there's physical force, 'finding someone's currency', emotional blackmail... all rather nasty, imho.

 

With my son, I've seen the power of love and trust - and, within that context, of sharing my vision for a certain situation or issue, my values and concerns (and then, of course hearing his).

 

I like your analogy. I think it's an apt one.  Where it falls apart for me is the fact that your relationship with your children is not like your supposed relationship with your god. For one thing, your children have immediate feedback from you. There exists a two-way communication and the reciprocal exchange of ideas. In contrast, you have an image of what you think your god might be like based on what you read, based what others say, based on how you've learned to interpret events in your life (coincidence vs divine intervention). I think it's more realistic to suggest that people who feel they have a personal relationship are using their imaginations to formulate a characterization of the god they have accepted as really existing based on faith. I think it's more realistic based on what we already know. 

 

This imaginary character is sometimes referred to as SPAG - Self Projection As God. It refers to the idea that each person projects their god as an idealized character, inspired by the subjective experiences of that individual, shaped by the values the individual holds. It's why your god and Amy's god are egalitarian and empowering, while another person's god is concerned with conserving more traditional attributes like unconditional obedience, and yet another person's god is progressive and loves everyone equally regardless of their religious affiliation. It's why No True Scotsman is practically unavoidable in these kinds of discussions. Roughly:

 

SPAG allows the believer to overcome issues of morality and inconvenience in their religion. In the case of morality, the thought process may be summed-up as follows:

• I believe that x is immoral
• God is moral
• God can't possibly support x

 

 

Thank you.  Usually I just get visual migraines - the pain is fairly rare.  ...and when it does come, it usually doesn't stick around for days on end... I am appreciating its absence, and hoping it is an extended one.

 

If there's anything I've left out that you want me to respond to, let me know.  I still have the experiment quoted in the Dawkins book to come back to, but I've abandoned my partial responses to everything else...

 

 I'm glad you feel better now. :)

[albeto.]

I'm still lurking. :)

 

I don't have any information to share, but I'm learning a lot from the discussion.

 

Cool! Care to share something you've learned?

[Amy in TX]

The difference being, an economist who ignores data is called out for it because appeals to data and objective information is valued. But economists working from the exact same data can come to different conclusions about what should be done in a given situation.  They don't have to ignore data to reach different conclusions.  They disagree all the time, actually much more often and on more fundamental issues than religious scholars do.  And they are probably at least part of the time influenced by their pet theories, seeing all data in the light of their particular school of thought, etc.  Should economics therefore be abandoned as unverifiable?  All human activity can't be reduced to equations.   The religious scholar who ignores data is protected to some extent, as faith is understood to be as credible as objective evidence, if not more so in some measure. It's that lack of respect for information and knowledge that inspires otherwise avoidable burdens. Todd Akin's disastrous appeal to science was quickly called out and readily corrected by the public. By the religious public.  Religious people found his statement absurd, too.  No religion, AFAIK, teaches or supports the contention he made.  You're using Akin as a straw man, as if what he said about how conception works was based on some religious teaching.  In religion, because information is gained and verified through personal faith, there exists no such accountability. No objective data can be used to challenge the faith.  I think you're projecting your own attitudes about religion here.   At least from the Muslim pov, objective data should always be made use of.  It enhances our ability to follow our religion, to do what is right.   As Hamza Yusuf (American Muslim scholar) said:  "I follow Islam because it's the truest thing I've ever found.  And if I found something truer, well, I'd have to follow that." 

 

 Because how cattle is slaughtered is in some way important to the Muslim's unseeable, unapproachable god with whom it is impossible to have two-way communication, the community of the faithful are compelled by reality to defer to the personal opinions of Islamic scholars. To these scholars, I have the same questions: How can you have confidence your opinion is accurate (because we cannot know)? When an Islamic scholar gives an opinion, he or she often finishes up with, "And Allah knows best."  Meaning that they recognize their human fallibility.  And every Muslim ultimately is answerable for his or her own behavior and must carefully weigh opinions.  But again, we have to weigh opinions and periodically come to decisions on more peripheral issues, not on the basics--there is one God, don't murder, no aggressive war, be good to parents, etc.  We aren't revisiting whether rape is ever ok, for instance.  Scholarly debate and disagreement doesn't spread suffering on the earth--violating clear basic tenets of Islam about which there is no scholarly disagreement does.   Because animals unnecessarily suffer when slaughtered to appeal to the personal wishes of this unseeable, unapproachable being with whom his opinion is impossible to confirm, these moral questions do rely on objectively verifiable or calculable physical realities. Only, these objectively verifiable and calculable physical realities are ignored in favor of maintaining a prefered religious practice.   What physical realities are being ignored in the Islamic method of slaughter?

 

 

I can't believe your appeal simply because historical and current events show the opposite. These events may be dismissed, but only by using the No True Scotsman fallacy. See my post to Eliana just above for more.  I never assumed Bin Laden to be an Islamic scholar, but instead a social leader of a growing group of people who sincerely believe they are fighting against terrorism in their own country. Social leaders use personal religion to justify their arguments (and it's not just social leaders, individuals do, too). This isn't an Islamic thing, but human nature in general.  You are confusing what-Muslims-do with what-Islam-teaches.  It is not accurate to say that because a Muslim commits murder in the mistaken belief that his particular murder is sanctioned by God, that Islam advocates murder.  There are clear texts to the contrary.  This isn't a case of No True Scotsman--that would be if I said, Bin Laden isn't a Muslim because no Muslim would do the things he did.  Yes, people can delude themselves into believing that what they want to do is what God wants, but as you say, this is human nature, not the fault of religion, and would happen even if there were no religion.  People can and do delude themselves about whatever moral or ethical code they follow, using it to justify what they want to do.  I would say it's even easier to use a non-religious ideology to justify acting on your own desires--there are no texts that that system's followers agree to abide by. 

 

 

[Free Range Mom]

I keep reading this thread partly because I don't want to miss anything Eliana has to say.  I've also really loved the respect and kindness and different points of view.  I ran across this poem by Philip Larkin (stone-cold atheist) and I thought that not only was it lovely, it really fits some of the thoughts and ideas being shared about the place and purpose of religion.  http://www.artofeurope.com/larkin/lar5.htm