-
The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
This is one of the reasons to me organized religion is such BS having to do more with man controlling man instead of honoring God. I myself was born a Christian and think Jesus is a neat fella that could be God. Who knows? I was born in America from parents that were Christian so I hope that brings me good luck. Wonder what the odds in Vegas are.
Anyway, I have people in my family that are so proud to be "God Fearing". Proud of being proud of it. But, what is love and why fear someone that loves you like God? Make it sound like God is wearing a wifebeater lying in wait for us at the Pearly Gates to push us down the staircase of condemnation. That's no loving God. That sounds more like the Satan character you made up just in case we don't fear God enough. Kiss the bunny between the ears because I have nothing but scorn for you.
http://thepovertydiet.files.wordpres...ar-pockets.jpg
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Have you ever seen Religulous with Bill Maher? It's a pretty funny documentary about how silly organized religion is.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
I haven't. I've seen some clips that were funny. From what I saw he looks fairly even handed in his bashing. Fine by me. I'll check it out if it comes on the DirecTV.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
All very confusing - why fear a deity that is "loving" and "forgiving"? "God fearing" in its original meaning "respecting God". Words change meaning, like "Exception that proves a rule" - where "prove" originally meant "to test".
'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.'
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
There is an argument that the first people to be described as 'God fearing' were those people who did not convert to Judaism but believed in the same One God as Moses and those who accepted Mosaic law as fundamental to the practice of being a Jew. This fringe group is of some importance because they did not convert to Judaism being opposed to circumcision, strict observance of the Sabbath, and the dietary laws that were developed by 'formal Jews'. Indeed I am not sure why they are called Jews as there is evidence that by origin they were Greek, or part of the Greek civilisation as it spread across the Eastern Mediterranean, in much the same way that the word 'Amen' is derived from the name of an Egyptian god Amoun, where one notes the influence of Ancient Egypt on the same region. The relevance to Christianity is that this marginal group of 'God fearing' people became some of the first of Paul's converts precisely because Christianity did not impose the same regulations on its believers and therefore made it easier to become part of a religious community without having to be circumcised, and so on. However, it seems to me that although Judaism expects its believers to both fear and love God, there is a greater emphasis on love in Christianity, and this may have been why the 'God fearing' people as a distinct community seem to disappear from the historical record.
However, as religions have developed they have become rule-based institutions which monitor human behaviour and by doing so offer moral judgement where such judgement may appear to believers to have permanent, that is, eternal consequences. For such moral judgements to have any effect, the institute requires believers to accept what the religious laws say without question. If someone believes that there is a God, that this God has absolute power and absolute and permanent awareness of who you are and what you do, then this power is awesome indeed. And by claiming to be representatives of this terrifying power, priests in turn acquire enormous prestige in society.
From an anthropological perspective, one can see that we are dealing with the means whereby a 'state of nature' in which there are no laws or constraints on human behavior, can be replaced by a 'state of government' which offers people a social framework in which a consensus on behaviour maintains social peace in which to produce the goods and services that make living tolerable in good times and bad times, where agriculture is the primary mode of subsistence. The role that religion plays in these societies is religious where religion acts as the principal means through which people understand why they are alive, the purpose they have in living, and the values attached to that. It was in one form science, art and politics offering physical, intellectual and spiritual comfort to all.
To fear God in this context, was a warning not to break the rules; and because on earth those rules were imposed by other men with a special status -priests- the institutional power of the Church (broadly defined to accommodate the three monotheist religions) was seen as a benefit to human society, and to be excommunicated from society was therefore a disaster for an individual who chose to be different. Of the three religions, Christianity is assumed to be more forgiving and flexible, where Judaism in its formal presentation and Islam are both unforgiving and brutal. The excommunication of the philosopher Spinoza is worth reading about as an example of the harsh conditions imposed by the Jews of Amsterdam at that time, it forced Spinoza out of the city for a while, and while he returned the only means of living he had was from the generosity of friends, some private teaching, and the grinding of lenses whose dust might have contributed to his death. The writ against him is one example of the means whereby a religious institution which claims the authority of God can exercise its punishment. I feel these days that unless one is a believer, these judgements are hysterical and worthless, but to believers they must cause great anxiety, and thereby induce obedience to the community as part of the wider obedience to God. Or else.
The writ against Spinoza (Amsterdam 1656):
The Lords of the ma'amad, having long known of the evil opinions and acts of Baruch de Espinoza, have endeavord by various means and promises, to turn him from his evil ways. But having failed to make him mend his wicked ways, and, on the contrary, daily receiving more and more serious information about the abominable heresies which he practiced and taught and about his monstrous deeds, and having for this numerous trustworthy witnesses who have deposed and born witness to this effect in the presence of the said Espinoza, they became convinced of the truth of the matter; and after all of this has been investigated in the presence of the honorable chachamin, they have decided, with their consent, that the said Espinoza should be excommunicated and expelled from the people of Israel. By the decree of the angels, and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of all the Holy Congregation, in front of these holy Scrolls with the six-hundred-and-thirteen precepts which are written therein, with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho, with the curse with which Elisha cursed the boys, and with all the curses which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down, and cursed be he when he rises up; cursed be he when he goes out, and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him; the anger and wrath of the Lord will rage against this man, and bring upon him all the curses which are written in this book, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven, and the Lord will separate him to his injury from all the tribes of Israel with all the curses of the covenant, which are written in the Book of the Law. But you who cleave unto the Lord God are all alive this day. We order that no one should communicate with him orally or in writing, or show him any favor, or stay with him under the same roof, or within four ells of him, or read anything composed or written by him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza...ious_community
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
By the decree of the angels, and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God...
Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor...but if you want to lie about what you know to be decreed by angels or what consents God gave you, just go ahead and lie, God will look the other way.
I've always found the dishonesty of the fervently faithful absolutely stunning. Is it a lack of intellectual integrity, or just outright lying? Did those who condemned Spinoza actually believe they knew what angels decreed and that they had God's consent on this particular excommunication, or were they wolves in sheep's clothing merely preserving the powers of their office by shunning those who proposed opinions that undermined their power?
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Thou shalt not kill...except for that one time mass murder was committed with a flood.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ben in LA
Thou shalt not kill...except for that one time mass murder was committed with a flood.
My aunt from Texas was over and I was talking to her. My kin over there take The Bible pretty literally. I asked her, "How did Noah live over 900 years?" She paused then gave a long "Weeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllll...", which gives her time to think of a lie if she can stretch that one word out long enough. Then she finished by saying, "People back then just lived lo'onger." Trying not to laugh I shrug it off by saying, "I guess they had better drugs back then." I will admit her faith is unflappable. Her logic is like Swiss Cheese though.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
There is an argument that the first people to be described as 'God fearing' were those people who did not convert to Judaism but believed in the same One God as Moses and those who accepted Mosaic law as fundamental to the practice of being a Jew. This fringe group is of some importance because they did not convert to Judaism being opposed to circumcision, strict observance of the Sabbath, and the dietary laws that were developed by 'formal Jews'. Indeed I am not sure why they are called Jews as there is evidence that by origin they were Greek, or part of the Greek civilisation as it spread across the Eastern Mediterranean, in much the same way that the word 'Amen' is derived from the name of an Egyptian god Amoun, where one notes the influence of Ancient Egypt on the same region. The relevance to Christianity is that this marginal group of 'God fearing' people became some of the first of Paul's converts precisely because Christianity did not impose the same regulations on its believers and therefore made it easier to become part of a religious community without having to be circumcised, and so on. However, it seems to me that although Judaism expects its believers to both fear and love God, there is a greater emphasis on love in Christianity, and this may have been why the 'God fearing' people as a distinct community seem to disappear from the historical record.
However, as religions have developed they have become rule-based institutions which monitor human behaviour and by doing so offer moral judgement where such judgement may appear to believers to have permanent, that is, eternal consequences. For such moral judgements to have any effect, the institute requires believers to accept what the religious laws say without question. If someone believes that there is a God, that this God has absolute power and absolute and permanent awareness of who you are and what you do, then this power is awesome indeed. And by claiming to be representatives of this terrifying power, priests in turn acquire enormous prestige in society.
From an anthropological perspective, one can see that we are dealing with the means whereby a 'state of nature' in which there are no laws or constraints on human behavior, can be replaced by a 'state of government' which offers people a social framework in which a consensus on behaviour maintains social peace in which to produce the goods and services that make living tolerable in good times and bad times, where agriculture is the primary mode of subsistence. The role that religion plays in these societies is religious where religion acts as the principal means through which people understand why they are alive, the purpose they have in living, and the values attached to that. It was in one form science, art and politics offering physical, intellectual and spiritual comfort to all.
To fear God in this context, was a warning not to break the rules; and because on earth those rules were imposed by other men with a special status -priests- the institutional power of the Church (broadly defined to accommodate the three monotheist religions) was seen as a benefit to human society, and to be excommunicated from society was therefore a disaster for an individual who chose to be different. Of the three religions, Christianity is assumed to be more forgiving and flexible, where Judaism in its formal presentation and Islam are both unforgiving and brutal. The excommunication of the philosopher Spinoza is worth reading about as an example of the harsh conditions imposed by the Jews of Amsterdam at that time, it forced Spinoza out of the city for a while, and while he returned the only means of living he had was from the generosity of friends, some private teaching, and the grinding of lenses whose dust might have contributed to his death. The writ against him is one example of the means whereby a religious institution which claims the authority of God can exercise its punishment. I feel these days that unless one is a believer, these judgements are hysterical and worthless, but to believers they must cause great anxiety, and thereby induce obedience to the community as part of the wider obedience to God. Or else.
The writ against Spinoza (Amsterdam 1656):
The Lords of the ma'amad, having long known of the evil opinions and acts of Baruch de Espinoza, have endeavord by various means and promises, to turn him from his evil ways. But having failed to make him mend his wicked ways, and, on the contrary, daily receiving more and more serious information about the abominable heresies which he practiced and taught and about his monstrous deeds, and having for this numerous trustworthy witnesses who have deposed and born witness to this effect in the presence of the said Espinoza, they became convinced of the truth of the matter; and after all of this has been investigated in the presence of the honorable chachamin, they have decided, with their consent, that the said Espinoza should be excommunicated and expelled from the people of Israel. By the decree of the angels, and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of all the Holy Congregation, in front of these holy Scrolls with the six-hundred-and-thirteen precepts which are written therein, with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho, with the curse with which Elisha cursed the boys, and with all the curses which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down, and cursed be he when he rises up; cursed be he when he goes out, and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him; the anger and wrath of the Lord will rage against this man, and bring upon him all the curses which are written in this book, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven, and the Lord will separate him to his injury from all the tribes of Israel with all the curses of the covenant, which are written in the Book of the Law. But you who cleave unto the Lord God are all alive this day. We order that no one should communicate with him orally or in writing, or show him any favor, or stay with him under the same roof, or within four ells of him, or read anything composed or written by him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza...ious_community
Thanks buddy. Always appreciated.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
Methus'lah lived nine hundred years,
But who calls dat livin'
When no gal will give in
To no man what's nine hundred years ?
It Ain't Necessarily So -- Cab Calloway - YouTube
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
"Common sense is not so common."
"As long as people believe in absurdities , they will continue to commit atrocities."
Voltaire
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor...but if you want to lie about what you know to be decreed by angels or what consents God gave you, just go ahead and lie, God will look the other way.
I've always found the dishonesty of the fervently faithful absolutely stunning. Is it a lack of intellectual integrity, or just outright lying? Did those who condemned Spinoza actually believe they knew what angels decreed and that they had God's consent on this particular excommunication, or were they wolves in sheep's clothing merely preserving the powers of their office by shunning those who proposed opinions that undermined their power?
I don't fear God, but I'm scared shitless by most of those who claim to be doing his work.
Or her work. Who cares? :whistle:
If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, then religion is the last refuge of the hypocrite, bigot and demagogue.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robertlouis
then religion is the last refuge of the hypocrite, bigot and demagogue.
Despite the differences, that's the one thing all religions seem to have in have in common.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dino Velvet
Despite the differences, that's the one thing all religions seem to have in have in common.
I'd make an honourable exception for the Quakers. If I did believe in God, I would be a Quaker. No intercession by a priest, no hierarchy, no bullshit.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
A while back I read a few chapters of one of Spinoza's treatises. I found his explanations and writing clear and sensible. There were a number of good quotations about the nature of religion that echo doubts many people have but aren't able to put into words. I found this quote of his that I like. He was also a keen observer of people's behavior and from what I remember was able to put into words how certain devoutly religious people are able rationalize their views without regard to contradiction by external events. Here's a quote that sort of points out that it is no coincidence that we assume that God shares all of our essential features.
When you say that if I deny, that the operations of seeing, hearing, attending, and wishing can be ascribed to God, or that they exist in Him in any eminent fashion, you do not know what sort of God mine is; I suspect that you believe there is no greater perfection than such as can be explained by the aforesaid attributes. I am not astonished; for I believe that, if a triangle could speak, it would say, in like manner, that God is eminently triangular, while a circle would say that the divine nature is eminently circular. Thus each would ascribe to God its own attributes, would assume itself to be like God, and look on everything else as ill-shaped.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dino Velvet
My aunt from Texas was over and I was talking to her. My kin over there take The Bible pretty literally. I asked her, "How did Noah live over 900 years?" She paused then gave a long "Weeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllll...", which gives her time to think of a lie if she can stretch that one word out long enough. Then she finished by saying, "People back then just lived lo'onger." Trying not to laugh I shrug it off by saying, "I guess they had better drugs back then." I will admit her faith is unflappable. Her logic is like Swiss Cheese though.
The explanation for the ages of Noah and Methusaleh can be explained rationally, indeed most aspects of religion in its textual forms can be rationally explained, not least because they were created by men (and it seems mostly to be men).
The original accounts of Noah, for example, were written on clay tablets in the Sumerian period and used a pictographic sign to denote numbers, with the ages of people drawn from their tax records. The flood in the Noah story may have been a river flood around 2900BC when Noah was 48. Re-calculating the Sumerian originals and then the mis-translations that were handed down through the Babylonian to the more modern Greek translations of these ancient texts, you find that Methusaleh fathered children in his teens and twenties and both Noah and Methusaleh lived into their 80s. It is quite simply a confusion that has developed over the mistranslation of sign-values from Sumer to other cultures. These signs are like Roman numerals, so I wonder how easy it is for people to translate XCVII?
Put another way, God had nothing to do with it.
There is an explanation here:
http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/ages.htm
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor...but if you want to lie about what you know to be decreed by angels or what consents God gave you, just go ahead and lie, God will look the other way.
I've always found the dishonesty of the fervently faithful absolutely stunning. Is it a lack of intellectual integrity, or just outright lying? Did those who condemned Spinoza actually believe they knew what angels decreed and that they had God's consent on this particular excommunication, or were they wolves in sheep's clothing merely preserving the powers of their office by shunning those who proposed opinions that undermined their power?
I have emboldened that part of your post which I think explains the writ to perfection. It can be explained by the need for rules as a means of maintaining social order, and that in itself is not a bad thing, but clearly if someone breaks those rules there will be consequences: the question is how damaging rule-breaking is because it doesn't always follow that social change which begins by breaking old rules will destroy society. The interesting problem here is whether or not religions grow and adapt -I think they do- or remain so stuck in their 'original' form as to become fossilized, or die out.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
The interesting problem here is whether or not religions grow and adapt -I think they do- or remain so stuck in their 'original' form as to become fossilized, or die out.
I agree. Some die out while others adapt and evolve, which is why I think, for good or ill, there will always be religions flourishing among us.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
I agree. Some die out while others adapt and evolve, which is why I think, for good or ill, there will always be religions flourishing among us.
Very true. All religions throughout history, by their very nature, start off small and have been regarded as marginal cults until they gain traction and, of course, political muscle. There, as they say, is the rub.
Who knows which messianic survivalist nutjob in Montana is going to be the next jesus?
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
None of which actually explains the religious perspectives that so many people have and have had, which apparently they need to have, and in which they often place greater faith than, say, politics. There are several men around the world who claim to be Jesus; Ghulam Ahmad was foolish enough to declare himself a successor to Muhammad yet the ancient religions that have survived are distinct from modern fads which offer neither a coherent explanation of the world nor a moral code to live by, Scientology in this respect is barely respectable as a form of psychotherapy. What people have difficulty in doing is separating the religious from the political where activists and states have succesfully warped the universal message into a particular ideology; it sounds like a cop-out to many these days but I think it is true.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
People have terrible needs and deep resentments. They want to live in a world that's fair and where justice prevails, at least insofar as it applies to them. When they perceive the world around them is not such a place, they imagine things will even out on a cosmic scale.
Religions pretend to tell us how Divine essences prefer us to live, what is moral behavior and what is immoral. Religions pronounce laws on every type of human action, from what we shouldn't eat to who needs to be stoned (Pass the joint Dino). It's not at all surprising that religion would press its views on politicians whose job it is to make law. This will always be the case.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
What people have difficulty in doing is separating the religious from the political where activists and states have succesfully warped the universal message into a particular ideology; it sounds like a cop-out to many these days but I think it is true.
I agree completely. It's also why, albeit an atheist, I have absolute respect for the Quakers. Their independence of mind and spirit is something that other religions should emulate, to the general good.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
People have terrible needs and deep resentments. They want to live in a world that's fair and where justice prevails, at least insofar as it applies to them. When they perceive the world around them is not such a place, they imagine things will even out on a cosmic scale.
Religions pretend to tell us how Divine essences prefer us to live, what is moral behavior and what is immoral. Religions pronounce laws on every type of human action, from what we shouldn't eat to who needs to be stoned (Pass the joint Dino). It's not at all surprising that religion would press its views on politicians whose job it is to make law. This will always be the case.
Poeple have a terrible need to be on the RIGHT side ,and to believe that all others who think and believe otherwise are Wrong .
that brings the question: what kind of god is it , to give special red phones all over the world and whisper in the ears those "chosen ones" : you are right , everyone else is wrong?
this god certainly needs a shrink ASAP.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
People have terrible needs and deep resentments. They want to live in a world that's fair and where justice prevails, at least insofar as it applies to them. When they perceive the world around them is not such a place, they imagine things will even out on a cosmic scale.
Religions pretend to tell us how Divine essences prefer us to live, what is moral behavior and what is immoral. Religions pronounce laws on every type of human action, from what we shouldn't eat to who needs to be stoned (Pass the joint Dino). It's not at all surprising that religion would press its views on politicians whose job it is to make law. This will always be the case.
Although I think some people need the comfort that a religious belief provides them, for example to confirm that death is not the end and that there is some kind of eternal rest, I think it is also important to recognise the link between religion and science in the ancient world. These days we know enough about the chemicals in food to prevent people eating infected products, although even in our modern world there are still food-borne diseases.
But consider: if you live in a society where God not only exists but God as absolute power informs social relations giving great importance to a priesthood, or witch-doctors for that matter, a prohibition on the consumption of pork, to take one example, is not just a moral law, it is a health and safety provision if rinderpest is endemic in that region.
The moral repugnance to same-sex relations, infidelity and abortion may be a response to a threat to the survival of the group, dealt with through the creation of rules whose primary function is to breed, given that before the advent of modern medicine and even after that and in some places today infant mortality is higher than we have become used to.
An anthropologist visiting the Andaman Islands (not Radcliffe-Brown I can't recall his name but I read a book on this some years ago) noted how common anal sex was among men, and concluded that it was both an act of pleasure and an alternative to masturbation which was and is in some societies (in Papua New Guinea) considered a waste of semen. It may be that in ancient societies anal sex and fellatio among men and boys was more common than we would like to believe, though the practices of the Greeks are reasonably well known. Could there also have been infections which enabled the priesthood to impose a ban on same-sex relations again, as a health and safety issue?
The point is that other than spiritual matters, there may often be a practical reason why in the past the wrath of God was invoked to amend human behaviour, where these days we can rely on rationality and clinical evidence...
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
The anger and the beneficence of Gods have been invoked to explain weather, volcanic activity, crop yields, plagues, wars, the abundance of game or lack thereof, the ability to score a touchdown etc. One can appease the Gods with sacrifice, or prayer; as long as you do your best to keep their laws. But if your neighbor is a homosexual, your whole town might get torn up by a tornado...so says Pat Robertson.
But these are not examples of religion adapting. Religions that warned against the eating of pig might have had some adaptive value by preventing the spread of trichinosis. Would they also they would have been more adaptive by recommending pig be well cooked?
At one time, it was thought that religion could explain the workings of the physical world. This is no longer the case. Religion has been confined to the moral and the spiritual. Religions that continue to insist the world is just a few thousand years old, or that blastocysts have souls are not adaptive. In spite of that, I think even these maladaptive attributes of religion will survive into the future. How so? Because hypocrisy is adaptive. One can be against vaccinations and benefit because others in your community are vaccinated. One can be against the findings of science and still benefit from its discoveries.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
The anger and the beneficence of Gods have been invoked to explain weather, volcanic activity, crop yields, plagues, wars, the abundance of game or lack thereof, the ability to score a touchdown etc. One can appease the Gods with sacrifice, or prayer; as long as you do your best to keep their laws. But if your neighbor is a homosexual, your whole town might get torn up by a tornado...so says Pat Robertson.
But these are not examples of religion adapting. Religions that warned against the eating of pig might have had some adaptive value by preventing the spread of trichinosis. Would they also they would have been more adaptive by recommending pig be well cooked?
At one time, it was thought that religion could explain the workings of the physical world. This is no longer the case. Religion has been confined to the moral and the spiritual. Religions that continue to insist the world is just a few thousand years old, or that blastocysts have souls are not adaptive. In spite of that, I think even these maladaptive attributes of religion will survive into the future. How so? Because hypocrisy is adaptive. One can be against vaccinations and benefit because others in your community are vaccinated. One can be against the findings of science and still benefit from its discoveries.
It is only hypocrisy if you believe that those people who oppose vaccination for religious reasons are behaviing in a deliberately irrational manner, to them it is in fact a rational response to the options as they see them. That doesn't make them right, but it does mean that explaining the benefits of vaccination to them is going to be a challenge. The benefits of contraception to the Philippines may have produced a different outcome if the Roman Catholic church for decades had not opposed it.
What you have indicated is the way in which knowledge has been compartmentalised, with scientific disciplines taking what was once an holistic view of life on earth and the cosmos, and rationalising each component -chemistry, physics, medicine, and so on. My point was that until this fragmentation of knowledge, religion was integral to the development of science -the development of mathematics was not the work of atheists, but religious men and women, and its purpose at one time was to use numbers to understand the laws of God, just as the ancient Egyptians used mathematics to design pyramids in which chambers would have direct access to the stars at specific times of the year, on the assumption that humans were directly linked to the cosmos. It may look absurd in the modern world, and people in the modern world can look and sound absurd when they attribute physical phenomena to God or the gods when there is a rational explanation at hand, but this doesn't mean rationality and religion are mutually exclusive.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
...What you have indicated is the way in which knowledge has been compartmentalised, with scientific disciplines taking what was once an holistic view of life on earth and the cosmos, and rationalising each component -chemistry, physics, medicine, and so on. My point was that until this fragmentation of knowledge, religion was integral to the development of science -the development of mathematics was not the work of atheists, but religious men and women, and its purpose at one time was to use numbers to understand the laws of God, just as the ancient Egyptians used mathematics to design pyramids in which chambers would have direct access to the stars at specific times of the year, on the assumption that humans were directly linked to the cosmos. It may look absurd in the modern world, and people in the modern world can look and sound absurd when they attribute physical phenomena to God or the gods when there is a rational explanation at hand, but this doesn't mean rationality and religion are mutually exclusive.
Religion compartmentalized the world into good and evil, godly and ungodly, terrestrial and celestial etc. Until Newton, it was thought the Heavenly spheres operated in accordance to a higher set of rules than the mere terrestrial. That the same force that made things fall on Earth was the very force that moved the planets was a break from religious dogma and a unification, not a compartmentalization. Evolution too is an example of an astounding unification that had to fight against the constraints of religious thought. Numerology is not precursor to number theory; accounting perhaps, but not numerology.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
The strength and weakness of religion is its holistic perspective of life and death and the rest, good and evil are not separate compartments but conditions which inform each other so you are wrong about that. The strength for believers is the feeling that one is part of a complete system in which it is not possible to get lost or be forgotten; the weakness is that codes of behaviour designed in one millenium may not 'fit' another, that explanations of existence which made sense in say, 500 BCE, make no sense in 2010. If a religion is flexible enough to accommodate change, as you agree, it survives in some form. My point about science is that separate disciplines have emerged in which people specialise, I think I was probably wrong to suggest science as a whole is not holistic, but I think you understand how some think their own niche is privileged over others, that Biology is cutting edge where chemistry is dull or vice versa. Aristotle was both a natural scientists and a philosopher, Leonardo da Vinci a scientist and an artist, and the 19th century provides many examples of people ranging across scientific and non-scientific disciplines, your illustrious Benjamin Franklin being one of them. And you seem to have a problem with mathematics, which is surely more than just 'numerology'?
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
When we were kids, one day after school my brother had gotten some explosive, and my friend's older brother devised a cannon of sorts in his back yard, a five foot piece of large drain pipe sunk into the ground, packed with the explosive powder, some rags, and then loaded with metal grapeshot: nuts, bolts, screws, any little metal stuff we could find. It was buried halfway down into the ground because nobody was sure if the whole thing wouldn't blow up like a large pipe bomb. Huey lit the fuse and all of the kids in the neighborhood who had gathered to witness this coolest of cool events ran to the farthest limits of the backyard fence.
As we were all anxiously and quietly waiting while the fuse sizzled down to zero hour, I heard the distant sound of car tires crunching asphalt in the front yard, and Dave, who had the only real beeline view of the driveway, said
"Daddy's home"
KABOOM!!!!
This is what's meant by God Fearing.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
My point about science is that separate disciplines have emerged in which people specialize, I think I was probably wrong to suggest science as a whole is not holistic, but I think you understand how some think their own niche is privileged over others, that Biology is cutting edge where chemistry is dull or vice versa.
In science people take degrees in “specialties,” like Biology, or even Evolutionary Biology. One quickly finds that understanding Evolutionary Biology requires an understanding of Zoology, Paleontology, Geology, Plate Tectonics, Population Genetics, Molecular Biology, Theory of Radioactive Isotopes, Chemistry of Gene Expression, Quantum Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics, Physics, Calculus, Probability, Statistics, etc.
Perhaps two hundred years ago Biology, Chemistry and Physics were perceived as having distinct and separate interests. Today they still have different aims and directions but they’ve have grown into one textured weave. This is not only the case with Biology, Chemistry and Physics but all of science. Particle physicists depend on input from Cosmologists and vice versa.
From the outside perhaps science looks like it’s divided into ever schisming sects that grow in number and that each practitioner grows more and more isolated, able to communicate only with members of her own cult. This picture couldn’t be further from the truth. True, a scientist today has much more to learn to reach the point to where she can constructively contribute to the ongoing discussion; but what she has to learn covers a broad array of interconnecting topics. This is to be expected. As we gain knowledge, the lines that were once perceived as boundaries grow together and overlap. Then when old problems are solved, different researchers pick new and different directions to explore. But no one area stands alone without support from the rest.
Yes, one runs across examples of team pride. Weinberg might write a book wherein he suggests all scientific knowledge ought to be reducible to a few principles of physics. And a biologist might protest in a letter to the NYC Book Reviews. But even this turns out to be an intelligent cross-specialty discussion of interest to the general culture. Moreover, it’s a discussion of just how holistic science might or might not turn out to be.
My domestic partner was raised Catholic. A few weeks before Christmas he received in the mail a pamphlet published by a local non-denominational (though Protestant) Church denouncing Catholics as idolators who worship the wafer-god. Should I take this to be a bit a razzing from a momentarily overzealous member of the fundamentalist team, or do the multitude of sects to be found within the various religions represent an irreducible compartmentalization of religious thought?
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Should I take this to be a bit a razzing from a momentarily overzealous member of the fundamentalist team, or do the multitude of sects to be found within the various religions represent an irreducible compartmentalization of religious thought?
Sounds like a fringe element in science disputing the evidence on climate change....
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
Should I take this to be a bit a razzing from a momentarily overzealous member of the fundamentalist team, or do the multitude of sects to be found within the various religions represent an irreducible compartmentalization of religious thought?
Sounds like a fringe element in science disputing the evidence on climate change....
Touche'. But even those climatologists who seriously dissent from the consensus of anthropogenic origin argues (perhaps incorrectly) from the basic principles of physics, atmospheric chemistry etc. The anthropogenic origins of terrestrial energy imbalance is not a dispute about basic principles but about higher level effects of those principles, and the interpretation of data and models.
To my mind the differences between Gnostics, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholics, Baptists, Charismatics, Pentecostals, Presbyterian, Mormonism etc. seem rather basic, at least it seemed that way to the original practitioners who felt the need to separate from the branch off which they schismed.
Do you really think the various sects of Christianity cohere in the same way as the various disciplines of science.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
The strength of science is that is based on rational thought backed up by evidence, and that with patient explanations most people can understand what science tries to do, even if in some cases the explanations seem too complex or obscure. The weakness in science is that in some cases the same evidence is used to produce contrary explanations, and that some discoveries and developments of science have produced weapons that can destroy the planet ten times over, assuming we can agree that is a negative outcome of positive action. I recall an article that Jeremy Bernstein wrote about the reactions of the nuclear scientists working on the Manhattan Project to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they were shaken to their core. I don't think they ever thought their work would result in such destruction.
Christianity does not speak with one voice because it developed in so many different places after originating in a small segment of the Roman Empire, something it shares with most religions. It might be possible to isolate and identify the key principles of Christianity, but I doubt there would be universal agreement on them among Christians. It may therefore be pointless in drawing attention to a standard feature of religion as if it were exceptional, much as there are liberal and orthodox Jews, Muslims who claim to be Sunna or Shi'a, not to mention the differences between Buddhists in India, Thailand and Japan.
The irony, if there is one, of an American drawing attention to this, is that it is precisely this freedom to be different that was part of the motivation for 'Pilgrims' to leave Europe and settle in North America. Just as the settlers rejected the Church of Rome or indeed, any established church, so in America they were free to create their own churches, and they have. Somewhere in de Tocqueville's study of America he comments on how Christian a county he feels the US is, and it is intriguing that the USA has been -and continues to be- one of the most exciting places in which to be a scientist, yet contains within it a substantial number of people, around 30% who think evolution is rubbish and that everything we see is part of 'God's design'; and as we have discussed before I think, it would probably be impossible for a man or woman who does not believe in God to be elected President.
Perhaps it is this diversity which makes life interesting; perhaps it would be better if in the case of much religion, and some science, it was not also such a vexatious challenge.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
The strength of science is that is based on rational thought backed up by evidence, and that with patient explanations most people can understand what science tries to do, even if in some cases the explanations seem too complex or obscure. The weakness in science is that in some cases the same evidence is used to produce contrary explanations, and that some discoveries and developments of science have produced weapons that can destroy the planet ten times over, assuming we can agree that is a negative outcome of positive action. I recall an article that Jeremy Bernstein wrote about the reactions of the nuclear scientists working on the Manhattan Project to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they were shaken to their core. I don't think they ever thought their work would result in such destruction.
I think the phenomena of contrary explanations is not peculiar to science, nor even as frequent in science as perhaps in other areas of inquiry. Contradiction, is a negative when it fails to inspire honest resolution. A couple years ago scientist working on OPERA suggested their work showed neutrinos could travel faster than light, contrary to special relativity. When a flaw was uncovered in the analysis of the OPERA data, the contradiction was resolved. On the other hand, the disagreements between General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory have persisted for several decades. It’s clear to physicists that one or both of these theories will eventually have to be modified before the conflicts can be resolved. It’s generally considered to be an exciting time to be working in either or both of these areas.
That science has produced weapons of unfathomable destruction is an undeniably Faustian aspect of real knowledge (of how the physical world works). It is a strong argument that such knowledge shouldn’t be pursued, or if it is, that is should be regulated in some fashion.
If there were such a thing as real knowledge of how religio-metaphysical things like souls, angels, demons and gods worked, I can’t help but think such knowledge might be equally dangerous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
Christianity does not speak with one voice because it developed in so many different places after originating in a small segment of the Roman Empire, something it shares with most religions. It might be possible to isolate and identify the key principles of Christianity, but I doubt there would be universal agreement on them among Christians. It may therefore be pointless in drawing attention to a standard feature of religion as if it were exceptional, much as there are liberal and orthodox Jews, Muslims who claim to be Sunna or Shi'a, not to mention the differences between Buddhists in India, Thailand and Japan.
I doubt that the rapid diversification in beliefs, creeds and practices is due entirely to the rapid spread of Christianity into all parts of the globe. The spread of science since Newton was probably even more rapid. It seems to me that Christianity, and religion, lacks a real desire to confront contradictory religious believes and resolve them honestly. Is the Eucharist a metaphor for Christ’s body, Christ’s body in substance or Christ’s body in essence? Does the soul enter the egg at the moment of conception, or not? Or are these questions nonsense? Is killing a human being abhorrent in the eyes of God or not? Will our soldier’s spend eternity in Hell? Purgatory? Is God three entities, five or one? All questions worth starting a new Church over. Why is there no progress on religious issues? I would contend it’s because there’s no substance there to agree upon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
The irony, if there is one, of an American drawing attention to this, is that it is precisely this freedom to be different that was part of the motivation for 'Pilgrims' to leave Europe and settle in North America. Just as the settlers rejected the Church of Rome or indeed, any established church, so in America they were free to create their own churches, and they have. Somewhere in de Tocqueville's study of America he comments on how Christian a county he feels the US is, and it is intriguing that the USA has been -and continues to be- one of the most exciting places in which to be a scientist, yet contains within it a substantial number of people, around 30% who think evolution is rubbish and that everything we see is part of 'God's design'; and as we have discussed before I think, it would probably be impossible for a man or woman who does not believe in God to be elected President.
Perhaps it is this diversity which makes life interesting; perhaps it would be better if in the case of much religion, and some science, it was not also such a vexatious challenge.
It’s true that religious dissenters flocked to America in droves for the promise of religious freedom. I don’t think it was the threat of excommunication that pushed them across the waters to the colonies. After all, once they got here they essentially excommunicated themselves from the old religions and started their own. It was the fear of torture and death. Of course we burned witches in the Americas as well, but that was before the First Amendment. Now we have all manner of sects, each one crazier than the last.
Indeed, the U.S. is a wonderful chaos. I don’t know if that’s a strength or not.
I do enjoy our discussions, Stavros. I’ve been told on a number of occasions that I can be a bit annoying at times...perhaps they meant vexatious. If so I apologize. I’ve got a point of view and a argumentative gene embedded somewhere in my code. Have a good one.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
I agree with the points you make about science. If there are ways in which religions adapt, it might be found in the connection between core beliefs and social change. The ancient prohibitions against abortion, masturbation, homosexuality, marital fidelity etc have been a significant challenge to organised Christianity and as we see today there is a major problem with same-sex marriages even if the same churches -the Anglican and the Roman Catholic, have softened their attitude towards homosexuality and divorce, but not abortion. Judaism I think has also moderated its attachment to ancient rules, I don't believe adulterers are stoned to death, if they ever were, and I am not even sure if the 'ultra-religious' Orthodox sects believe stoning a just punishment (although in Israel youths are known to throw stones at cars driving through their neighbourhood on the Sabbath but that is hardly on the same level).
So, institutionally, change is possible, but it is not without controversy because either the scriptures mean one thing, or they can be interpreted to mean anything. This then leads to the problem that by adapting to modern behaviour, Christianity ceases to be what it is supposed to be and cannot be called Christianity; it becomes a moral supermarket, it replaces the principles of the gospel with the principles of marketing in order to retain the loyalty of its customers.
However I do think it is possible for this to happen with individuals; the beauty of the privatisation of religion is that you can claim to be a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim without having your beliefs endorsed by a community of believers; orthopraxy is replaced by autonomy. On another level, there are people who for one reason or another experience a crisis in their lives which conversion to a religion resolves, giving them a structure of belief, values, maybe rituals which they did not have before, thereby proving that even if religions are institutionally unable to adapt and change in the way scientific ideas impact society, change can take place at the individual level, and that may be the only way in which these religions can survive, other than through the inculcation of religion in childhood and school.
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
-
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
It doesn’t require faith in a divine entity or communion with a cosmic being to understand thermodynamics. No such faith is required to understand how the entropy facilitates (rather than obstructs) the chemistry of life. It only requires faith in yourself. Faith that you can do algebra, calculus and elementary physics up to and including atomic theory of matter; all topics of an undergraduate education in science and or engineering. Anyone can do it. You don’t have to be a genius. Just diligent and critical.
This is in fact Jamie’s claim. Her thesis is that belief in the Christian God no longer requires faith in anything other than your own ability to learn mathematics and follow the logic of Tipler’s proof step by step. (That, or you can accept the authority of the mathematicians and physicists who have done so.)
Whether you do this or not depends on how worthwhile you think the project of reading and checking every point of Tipler’s argument will be for you. If you already have the required skills this may be relatively trivial. If not, it can be a years long project.
If the question, “Does belief in the Christian God require faith in God? is not all that important to you, (perhaps because you already have that faith, or perhaps because you already have sound reason to disbelieve), Tipler’s contribution may not require all that much attention on your part. Professional mathematicians still get mail from cranks who claim to have squared the circle, trisected an angle with ruler and compass etc. A quick glance down the page usually lands the communication in the trash in less than two minutes.
What I find curious, is that anyone would believe Tipler’s “proof” without attempting to critically and honestly analyze it in every mathematical detail. A proponent of Tipler who doesn’t give his argument that attention is merely replacing faith in the divine with faith in less than a handful of fringe physicists. Perhaps I understate their predicament: rather they are allowing their faith in the divine to inform and amplify their faith in the omega fringe.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: The Concept Of Being "God Fearing"
There is no before the big bang there is only after. If the light from the sun can travel 90 million miles through space to warm the earth's oceans and spark life, even imagination cannot conceive of the POWER of the entire universe crammed into a space the size of a softball. No time, no space, no edges.
This could be a very good description of GOD. Self evident like a mofo.
Nobody really speaks for God, they point the way.
The Big Boys of Religion say it is your own attachment to the world that blinds you to a God that is standing right before your eyes. The only sin that exists is yours: pride, arrogance, sloth, all the good stuff basically. Even while Jesus spoke of God, the people all wanted to see him do magic tricks like walk on water and raise the dead.
I found a Physics test from high school, I couldn't even understand the answers I wrote!!
But I'm afraid I have to agree that Jamie Michelle's article will not be an amendment to the Bible. But even if you argue that Jamie Michelle is wrong, you cannot argue that she is not smart. The big boys of Cosmology have bitter fights all the time!! I do agree that God has many characteristics of the Mother of all black holes, power beyond your dreams, but I don't think you get there through physics, I think you get there through prayer. Meditation. Breath Control. The non-questioning faith of a child. And even then your chances of success are about the same as becoming an internationally known transsexual porn star. Better than the lottery, though.
I'm just rambling, here, I think discussing God on the internet.........you get what you pay for. ha ha