More things in heaven and earth, AKA: Tolerance! I has it!

[sarka]

Note: Edited to delete a few points, which, on reflection, probably need an entry of their own.

So jazzqueen wrote a post. And as her philosophical posts are wont to do, it got me thinking.

Are people seriously generally of the mindset that religion is okay, as long as people, you know, shut up about it? Honestly?

Personally, I'm religious. I am a deeply and fundamentally religious person and my faith makes up a huge part of who I am. I don't talk about it much, because I've never felt the need to share my beliefs with others – I've always felt that organized religion was like being marched in formation to look at a sunset: unlikely to change anything about your appreciation of things and rather detrimental to your sympathy for other people's points of view.

My faith has very little to do with the Bible. I've read great chunks of it (not all of it, but a lot) and some of it has merit and other things don't – to my worldview at least. I believe in Jesus. Well, for me it's not a belief, per se, as his existence is a historically proven fact. Do I believe he ascended up to heaven after rising from death? I'm not entirely sure, but I'm not willing to rule out the possibility.

No, my faith differs from the basic Christian worldview in several key areas. One of the cornerstones of my approach to the world is my faith in science – but I could not hold that faith unless I was willing to take a few things as given without questioning them too much. How do we know that the ground rules we have laid down to approximate the workings of the world will still be valid tomorrow? Honestly: we don't. We simply do not hold an understanding of the world yet that allows us to prove that the world will always work the way it works today. So we take things on faith; that the scientific principle can teach us real things about the world in which we live, that knowledge is an end in itself and that the more things we understand, the better we will be able to orient ourselves in the universe.

But science can't teach us everything. There is no way to fundamentally prove the difference between right and wrong, and science, while it has its own moral code, can't help us in making moral decisions.

This is where religion comes in. Be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Confucianism, Sikhism, Jainism, Sufism, Taoism, Gnosticism, Paganism, Atheism or philosophy, religion is simply a counterpart to science as a method to approach and understand the world. Some people give greater import to science, other people subjugate science to a value-based ideology.

There's nothing wrong with either approach. The fundamental problem is our inability to respect the choices other people make about which approach is more appropriate for them.

And it's certainly easier to subscribe to a belief system wholesale than to attempt to make up your own; I know this personally because there are a few issues where I keep running headfirst into a wall of my own beliefs and morals, and honestly, it would be a lot more simple to go with the flow – to be an atheist and maintain that science and rationality is the only way to go or to be a religious person and abhor the choices that science sometimes forces us to make. I can't blame people for that.

But every single one of us must sometimes come up against something that doesn't feel right; an area our basic codes of operation don't extend to, a place where we have to make a decision based on what we believe is right. Some things we just know.

And anything that helps us to figure out the difference between right and wrong can't be inherently bad, just the same way it can't always be inherently right. Eschewing other people's codes of morality as stupid or wrong, or okay as long as they don't talk about them in public, or to you, or make them an aspect of the public sphere... it goes against the very grain of what most people otherwise profess to believe in: choice, rationality and freedom.

Comments

[vampyran.livejournal.com]

Huh.. I had no idea you were religious :D Doesn't change the fact that I like you :)

... I don't mind people talking about religion. Not at all. Maybe I was unclear in my comment to Halla... I just don't like when they start talking about how I will go to hell for not believing in God or how my life is empty and without purpose without him. That annoys me.

And like I said I try to follow the treat others like you want to be treated so I'm toning down my prejudice. Doesn't change my view though.

I'm also of the opinion that religion has nothing to do with what is right and wrong. The 10 commandments for example are mostly just common sense. Even if you don't believe it doesn't mean you are without sense :P

Sure people should always get along, ... but I also truly belief that most of everything that is wrong in the world is because if religion. I think that is my main problem with it. Organized religion is not cool in my opinion.

[sarka.livejournal.com]

I'm not religious in the conventional sense. I don't go to church, I rarely pray, and I will loudly debate scripture with any bible-thumpers. I'm not a Christian.

I don't believe that most everything that's wrong with the world today is because of religion - though I'm no fan of organized religion, as I said in the entry. I think that most everything that's wrong with the world today is because of two reasons: 1. Lack of education and 2. The belief on part of the world that is generally called "The West" that the rest of the world's problems can be fixed by using the same methods and approaches that have worked for them, and that if the third world were to correctly apply these methods, "The West" wouldn't have to make any sacrifices.

[sarka.livejournal.com]

Also, I guess the point I'm trying to make is this:

Religion doesn't tell you what is right or wrong; only you can tell you what is right or wrong.

Still, those people who eschew the morals of religion as false ideology ought to take a closer look at their own ideologies to see if they hold up under the same scrutiny.

My basic question is, how do you make decisions about moral choices?

[salixbabylon.livejournal.com]

a very well thought-out statement, which i happen to agree with on every count. :)

[sarka.livejournal.com]

Thank you :)

[hildigunnur.livejournal.com]

You know, I think we see very much eye to eye on this. (It's so strange seeing how we often discuss life, universe etc. that we've hardly ever discussed religion).

[sarka.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I figured ;) And we must remedy that with a discussion about religion sometime :)

(Honestly, I believe in elves. God is hardly a stretch.)

[sarahblack.livejournal.com]

Don't forget that people are animals too. How do you think animals know how to make moral choices? They don't. They just do what they do.

This is hard to explain, but reading Desmond Morris has helped me realize that so many things that we consider to be uniquely human could in fact be direct by-products of our animal nature. People solve moral dilemmas pretty much the same way despite their upbringing, education, religious beliefs or gender. It's part of our nature, and there's usually a pretty straight forward reason for why. If one can be bothered to look.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I feel like I already know of a pretty good, rational theory on what it is that helps us figure out the difference between right and wrong. I don't feel the need to look to religion or spirituality to solve the problem.

But I like this perspective. I hadn't thought of it this way.

(And I came off really arrogant. Sorry... :/)

[sarka.livejournal.com]

Heh, you do sound a bit arrogant at the beginning there, but don't worry about it, you make a good point so you're allowed to be ;) Besides, I just made a sermon on religion, of all things, so I can't really talk, now can I?

Biological imperative is important, I do agree, though I don't tend to assign it quite as much importance as Mr. Morris. Yes, it is true that people solve moral dilemmas in similar ways despite all their circumstances, but for me, the very notion of the concept "moral dilemma" is one of the basic differences between sentience and non-sentience. Only humans are concerned with morals. The question is therefore: What is a moral dilemma, and what is not?

And I do understand the belief system of rationality - I used to subscribe to it. Then I spent two years studying philosophy and became a very fundamentally skeptic person, which, amusingly enough, has not at all conflicted with my spirituality. (I'll explain how if you're curious, but I don't want to preach.)

What mostly annoys the heck out of me in these debates is the notion that rationality isn't a belief system, which is what most rationalists will tell you, and I find intrinsically contradictory to most of rationalist theory.

[sarahblack.livejournal.com]

I think animals have moral dilemmas too. But that's just my opinion. I can't prove it, so it's just a personality quirk, I guess.

I don't think rationality is a belief system, but I can see how it could be for a lot of people. I define belief as something that is somewhat unchanging. If you believe something to be true, to be fact, you're not likely to change that belief when faced with any indication that it might be untrue. You're going to hold on to your notion. At least, that's what I see religious people do. (Even if the Catholic church has been kind enough to admit that the earth does in fact go around the sun.)

To me, being rational is all about being allowed to change your mind if the evidence changes.

And don't worry, you don't come off preachy. I would love to hear how your skeptic isn't conflicted with your spiritualist. I find this all so interesting. I love seeing other people's point of view. I'm pretty sure if people didn't argue with me I'd just become unbearably set in my views on the matter.

[kalldoro.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to say what I think, I don't want to hurt your feelings. I decided several years ago that I'm firmly atheistic, not even agnostic. As far as I'm concerned there's a rational explanation for everything, we just don't always know what it is yet.

I believe most of the moral rules we hold today are much more human than religious. If anything, I think humanity is getting more and more moral as we become less religious.

There's a difference between wanting to deny you your rights, smother your beliefs and push you into a corner on one hand, and simply not being interested in talking about god on the other. I have no issues with people like you, you don't keep telling me that I should believe, or cite scripture or try to push your religion on me. I have issues with the religious hegemony that assumes that everyone's religious, everyone wants to get married in a church, babtise their children, etc., etc. I have issues with fundamentally religious people trying to limit other people's lives based on religion.

I probably just shouldn't say anything. I rarely discuss religion with people outside a certain group (my family and a few choice friends). I've stated my stance a few times, but I'm not trying to influence anyone. I am perfectly willing to fight for both my rights and the rights of people in other places. People who are being oppressed by religion.

By all means, make religion public. Just don't expect the state to pay for it and keep it out of legislation.

Don't mind me. I guess we're just as opposite ends on this issue.

[sarka.livejournal.com]

Two things:

I'm not going to say what I think, I don't want to hurt your feelings.

I think I stated this when I started blogging, way back in 2001, but I guess it needs restatement; I would much rather you tell me how you really feel than to self-edit. I promise, nobody will be thrown out of this blog for being honest, as long as they're polite, and I know you're polite.

Don't take it easy on me. I'm a big girl, and my worldviews were shaped by aggressive debates throughout two years of studying philosophy in university: I promise you, nothing you can say will shake me. I'd much rather respond to your honest opinions than you trying to tread softly around the issue in order to spare my feelings. (Some of my ex-classmates would tell you I have no feelings at all!)

And the reason for this is: Don't mind me. I guess we're just as opposite ends on this issue.

Because I don't think we are, I truly don't. Just because we approach the world in different ways does not mean we may not come to the same ultimate conclusion.

[cynthia-black.livejournal.com]

The fundamental problem is our inability to respect the choices other people make about which approach is more appropriate for them.

Word - it's good to see someone saying something so sensible :-)

[sarka.livejournal.com]

Thanks :D I do my best to be sensible.

[carolanne5.livejournal.com]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, it's fascinating to understand individuals personal beliefs. My personal belief is secular humanist. I view all the world religons as humanity's attempts to both understand their origins and to try and create a better society.

From what you've discussed your personal religion is based on moral values. So do you believe in the concept of God the creator who defined those values?

[sarka.livejournal.com]

When it comes to ideology I do subscribe to a number of -isms, but I don't tend to fall neatly into a category. Still, I do agree with your first point.

As for the concept of God the creator... well, here I do fall neatly into a category; I'm a theological noncognitivist; I do not deny the existence of a God but I don't believe that humanity will ever manage to define God - I think humanity generally assumes too much (or alternatively, too little) - about the concept of God, and therefore the question of the existence of God is meaningless.

I do believe in the concept of absolute right, however, and while our society shapes our values, I still do think that humanity may one day rise above societal values to find a deeper, more progressive sort of morality. But then I definitely am an idealist ;)

[carolanne5.livejournal.com]

Very educational, I'd never heard the term theological noncognitivist before. So am I correct in thinking it means you beleive that there is no point discussing the existence of a god because there is no meaningful definition of what a god might be?

So by saying that you are religous person what do you actually mean? I've always thought, simplistically now I realise, that to be religous was to beleive in a God. Are you saying that for you religion means to adhere to a moral framework?

[sarka.livejournal.com]

Precisely. All we can discuss is what God and faith means to us, personally - which is educational and can be constructive, but is also incredibly personal which is always going to raise some hackles, you know?

For me, religion is largely about my ability to subject myself to the concept of a higher power, call it God, call it truth, call it faith, call it the Flying Spaghetti Monster if that's what you want. It's about trying to do what you believe is right, even when that's not the easiest thing youl could do, it's about having faith in the notion that there is such a thing as a greater good and that it's worth striving for, it's about believing in the idea that our choices matter in a greater context than just our own lives and the lives of those around us, it's about holding yourself accountable for your actions in the belief that there will be some sort of reckoning.

For me, trying to be a good person has always been an end in itself, not a means to an end, which is basically where my beliefs diverge with those of a lot of other people. But my faith is also about things which cannot be proven; that people are generally good, that knowledge is important, that if love is a mistake it's a mistake worth making, that forgiveness makes you a better person and that there is more to the world than the things we can touch and sense and see... things that can't be proven in the general sense, but that's the whole point of faith, after all, and the important thing about believing in these things is not that your belief should never be shaken or tested, but that these things are important, that they're worth believing in.

I think people who only believe in things that science can prove have the wrong idea, like I said in the post, because science is also built on an assumption about the world - and anybody who's ever studied physics in any depth can tell you how likely it is that all those assumptions will be shaken one day.

My point is, I don't think we understand the world. But I think it's important to try.

[carolanne5.livejournal.com]

*smiles* I agree with much of what you are saying, but you say it a lot better than I could!

Personally I believe that human consciousness is an accident of natural selection; that it has ultimate purpose or fate. Given that it's up to humanity to make the best of the world we find ourselves in. That for me incompasses things that you mentioned above ... being kind to others, helping where ever you can, acquiring knowledge to gain wisdom and improve society for both ourselves and those that will follow us.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

[carolanne5.livejournal.com]

Ooops of course that should have read ...

Personally I believe that human consciousness is an accident of natural selection; that it has NO ultimate purpose or fate.

... serves me right for typing too fast!