This is going to be a big post.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by levite
Well, I might begin by saying that you're right, it would be entirely unreasonable to believe that about Moses, because Genesis tells that story in regard to Noah.
|
Sorry, we've have a few people say they were spiritual leaders here that turned out to be lying. It was just a really quick and easy test that was intended to catch someone who wasn't paying attention. People less familiar with the texts are likely to confuse Moses and Noah.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by levite
But I won't. Yes, some reason must be suspended for faith: I believe in God, not because anyone showed me logical proofs or philosophical models or laboratory evidence, but because I had spiritual experiences which I feel certain were revelatory (very nebulous, don't worry, I don't hear voices or anything). That means that I personally am comfortable saying that I have evidence to believe in God, but my evidence is not compelling for anyone but myself. Nonetheless, I might have misinterpreted that evidence or ignored it or labeled it something else altogether had I not been brought up as a practicing Jew (or, I suppose, in some other religious tradition). And that would be a shame, because living my life in relationship with God has proven joyful and fulfilling for me. Now, I don't consider this choice to be irrational, but rather, arational: it makes sense to me, and I am aware that I have chosen to believe something that is "objectively" not provable. I just don't see anything wrong with that. Your point that the suspension of reason leaves one vulnerable to those intending to manipulate religion seems to me to be either an argument against fundamentalism, but not all religion, or an excellent argument for education, both religious and secular: the more one knows, the more difficult it is to be manipulated.
|
Good answer. I would have to say, though, that I suspect that you do rely on spiritual leaders to help interpret the Torah, right? I'm sure you've read about Rabbi Joseph Karo's commentary on Maimonides' code, for example, in order to gain another great man's perspective of aspects of your faith. Lutheran's read the small catechism; Muslims read the teachings of different rasuls. My point is that even one who has a knowledge of his or her subjective faith still does rest some of the faith on others. You're not Jewish in a vacuum, you have thousands of years of faith and faithful that your understanding is built on. And I would be very surprised if they had no effect on your faith.
What I'm getting at is your a-rational choice can be associated with the teachings of others. I'm sure you, in training to be a Rabbi, have a Rabbi. You'd probably put a lot of stock in what he tells you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by levite
This is simply unreasonable. Al-Qaeda are beyond fundamentalists. They are rabid fanatics. You can't use them as an example of what's wrong with religion in general, any more than you can look at the actions of Sudanese militias in Darfur, and decide on that basis that Africans are all bloodthirsty and violent, and they just have to go. The majority of people who practice religions are not fanatics and radicals: I really cannot see why they should be judged upon the actions of those who are.
|
The majority of Christians don't believe in evolution. 60% of US citizens, actually. This is an example of the suspension of logic and reason to allow faith in god to be expanded very easily to include something that really is dangerous because it stands directly in the way of scientific knowledge.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by levite
With all due respect, people have never not been able to find causes for war and murder if they look for them. Quite a number of conflicts-- including ones that attached the name of religion to themselves for PR purposes-- have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. People fight about land, about goods, about resources, about perceived cultural biases, and about honor and perceived slights to due respect, among many other things that have nothing to do with religion. I mean no offense, but if you think that the absence of religion would lead to world peace, I believe you are deeply kidding yourself. And if you think that Hitler was interested in wiping out the Jewish people (6 million killed, btw, not 2 million) because of theology, you are wrong. This was about scapegoating the other, and to be other, one need not practice a different religion, just hold different political views, or come from a different culture, or speak a different language. If Judaism was only a culture and not a religion, he would have killed the 6 million anyway. If there were no Jews, he would have wiped out the Poles or the Slavs or focused on the communists or the gays, whom he killed far too many of as it is.
|
I don't think that and end to religion would lead to world peace. Any relative world peace would come from global understanding of human life to be sacred or something that shouldn't be taken by another for any reason. That's probably not going to happen. What I was trying to get at is that while the crusades actually had little to do with religion, "god" was still the battle cry for most who were involved. "God" was what was used by policy makers to stir the masses into action. The crusades would have been a tough sell to a Hindu. I'm describing religion being used as a tool on the religious.
BTW, sorry about the 2 million thing. I was recently discussing the Armenian genocide and got my facts all messed up.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by levite
Look, I will certainly agree that there have been many times in history-- and there are plenty of times today-- when religion is abused and/or misinterpreted by the ruthless for terrible purposes. Nobody will agree to such a proposition faster than your friendly neighborhood Jew, believe me. But that, to me, does not provide a reason for why all religion should be eliminated: it provides a reason for educating people about what they are supposed to believe in, and promoting tolerance and interfaith dialogue, and encouraging religious movements to foster their traditions productively.
|
I hope to make one thing clear: I'm not arguing for the end of religion. I'm just saying I understand that some people may come to that conclusion. BTW, many people honestly believe that their religion is about war or killing. I could name dozens of Torah, New Testament, and Qur'an verses about killing and vengeance and war. How many people did the Abrahamic God kill? How many people were ordered to be killed by the Abrahamic God by his followers? Tolerance simply isn't always a person's subjective interpretation, and telling them that they're wrong is a tough sell, too.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by levite
By your logic, we ought to eliminate science because scientific improvement has produced modern weapons like nuclear bombs, napalm, and phosphorus shells. But we don't advocate such an elimination of science, because science also brings us knowledge of the stars, the wonders of the universe; and besides, before bombs, before artillery, before the sophisticated forging of tempered steel, people still found things to use as weapons against each other. Eliminating science would not eliminate war and murder, any more than eliminating religion would do so.
|
I've never heard anyone say "He needs to die because that's what I believe Einstein would want." The decision making process isn't scientific, so I see that as being a bit different. Maybe, MAYBE psychology because of propaganda, but even that's a stretch.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by levite
Since you yourself don't believe in God, and so presumably, do not practice a religion (and presumably, if you were raised in a religion, you didn't have a very good experience of it), it is well-nigh impossible to convey to you the positive contributions that religion does give back to people. But I can tell you, it fosters community, it produces literature and art of considerable beauty, it offers people a set of moral and ethical guidelines from which to choose the rules of how they will live, and yes, it fosters spiritual awareness and the opportunity to transcend the rational. Nobody says you have to believe in those things, but for the people who do, they are deeply valuable, life-changing experiences.
|
I donated $1000 to the Catholic Church after Katrina in order to help people as quickly and efficiently as possible because I knew more of my money would actually reach the people in need. The Catholic Church has a surprisingly small overhead because they use so many volunteers, as opposed to the Red Cross and other aid organizations. I think this demonstrates at least some objectivity so far as religion is concerned.
My own experience varied, much like any other person (I would imagine), but wasn't so terrible. I was a happy-go-lucky kid without a care in the world and the obligatory faith that I really had never reflected upon or questioned. When I was a freshman in AP bio, my teacher and I got in a rather serious debate about evolution. A 2 week debate, in fact. The last day I brought in my Bible (a birthday present) in order to support my case, and I was surprised to find that she was able to successfully take apart my entire argument piece by piece. This was the genesis of my critical thinking. I reflected for years on religion and, after studying history and science and being honest with myself, I realized that religion was simply the dawn of science in sentient beings. Humans needed explanations for phenomena when we were in our infancy. Why does the sun move across the sky, and what is it? Being that we understood ourselves to be the most complex and familiar, we assigned the sun a personhood. It had ability and personality, which explained it's movement. This continued, morphed, and evolved into polytheism. That evolved into monotheism. The thing is, we now know what the sun is. It's a mass of gasses burning at millions of degrees and it's movement is actually our movement. It's not a person any more than my stovetop. And it's okay to admit that. If we had the ability to go back in time to meet people who worshiped the sun, they would likely find us to be blasphemers.
To preface what I said about not arguing for the end of religion, I do see the possible end of religion as a step in the right direction, but if it's not right yet, then pushing humanity would be a mistake, just like explaining the sun to ancient civilizations would be a mistake. We may not be ready yet and we may never be ready.
Good talk, though.