This put me in mind of Lewis Carol: “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.”
We are not going to agree on this one Leo. Practically how many people walk around calling themselves Christians, maybe even go to church or mass without actually believing in a virgin birth ? I would guess about half - probably more than that for Protestants. I do not actually call myself a Christian (in case you're wondering) - my own lifestyle excludes me from people using this epithet about me - I don't even believe in marriage (goes against nature). If you actually read the whole bible (and not just the meaty bits) you would come to the conclusion that the modern system which we call capitalism is thoroughly condemned there, in fact there are over 20 mentions in it of how Christians should live together, and they emphasize, over and over again, the need for communality of property. Yet millions of people waltz around calling themselves Christians in our World (only because they believe in immaculate births etc.).
I think we may agree on more than you think actually. I totally agree that many people call themselves Christians a) whom I would question and b) who have very little understanding of what their religion teaches. Partly that is because they were often born into it and have never actually questioned it for themselves. I am content to leave them with the Christianity they were born into. However if they are "active" Christians debating their faith I would expect them to have a knowledge of what they believe. Nowadays though Christianity has been watered down to an extent where I am sure a lot cannot really pass the acid test. You have established you do not count yourself as a Christian - neither do I. I think the decline of marriage has helped worsen our modern society as it has led to a more casual attitude to responsibilities especially where children are concerned. But I do not think of it in a religious context. I have read the bible many times - all of it. I remember not one criticism of capitalism as it simply did not exist in those days. It was a more tribal /communal existence. That is just how it was then. Very nice but not at all helpful for the modern world where your ideal of cooperatives and communal living seem to me pipe dreams -ones I would loathe. Is it really your belief that "millions of people waltz around calling themselves Christian only because they believe in immaculate births etc"? That is nonsense. Belief in virgin birth may come as part of the package but for most I doubt it has any relevance as to why they are Christian. I think most Christians would find that a very offensive statement
I am going to adjourn for a while Leo - we have several Gods running around at the Vic. in a few minutes !
OK – let’s take a step back. I would like to identify 6 strands of “belief” if you like. 1 Belief that there is “something” above and beyond the narrow limits that our senses can perceive. It may simply be that we have additional sense perceptions which we have not as yet developed as a species. We know other species can do things we cannot – see in different visual spectra, create electricity and the like. It could be though something more supernatural that exists but which does not involve itself with us but which we can tap into if sufficiently attuned – as many monks etc have shown. 2 Belief that there is a god. To be a god rather than something contained in (1) above this must be something that is not only supernatural but has self-awareness whether or not it can or chooses to interfere with life in the universe. 3 Belief that within us there is something which is not mortal. Call it a soul or spirit or whatever you like but this is greater than the flesh and bones of living creatures. It may or may not exist in just mankind, in other animals or, in some beliefs, in inanimate objects like mountains. 4 Belief in a god or gods that actually interfere in our lives and perhaps shape and direct it. 5 Belief in a personal god (singular) that requires us to behave in a certain way with threats and punishments or treats depending on our behaviour. This last will usually involve an afterlife where we “go” when we die. 6 Belief that there is absolutely nothing beyond our five senses and intangible things like love. Before I expand on this perhaps others could help either refine or add to this list and maybe even suggest where they see differing religions fitting in. Some of the options may not be mutually exclusive. I see no way to prove which of these scenarios is the universe to which we belong. One thing is clear: as we cannot prove anyone of these it is rude to deride other people’s choice (if choice is fair) . We can argue that certain things about them are likely or unlikely, good or bad but even the atheist has to accept that his belief is only based on lack of evidence to the contrary and the probability of the others being accurate.
1. I am agnostic on this. I would suggest that the opposite is true that we have lost a lot of our animal instincts and our intellect as a species has masked these things and we tend to ignore them. 2. Again agnostic but extremely skeptical. I certainly don't think that we are the most intelligent beings in the universe across time, there is no evidence to support us being anything but alone. We're the best an omnipotent creator can do? Spare me. 3. I accept the lack of repeatable and testable evidence that there is a spirit. We live on through our children. 4. Agnostic atheist. I do not believe in a deity. 5. Apistevist, actually. I do not believe in faith. Certainly not the goat herderders guide to the galaxy of any variety. 6. Love I understand as an emotion. An intangible thing? Well no we see this across the animal spectrum. I do not do absolutes so again sceptically agnostic as to such things... again absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I would throw your final comment back at you and say that believing and espousing something you do not know and cannot show is far more offensive than accepting the null hypothesis. Innocent before proven guilty. The positive claim, that there IS this that or the other MUST have the burden of proof. Otherwise we are all guilty before proving ourselves innocent.
Belief in many Gods could be added to this list Leo. One question I have always been bothered with - if you believe that space just goes on and on into infinity (and nobody can imagine a brick wall). Then somewhere there must be other planets with conditions which support life - possibly many of them. Is our God also their God ? Maybe he is responsible for so many planets that he has forgotten about us. Or maybe there is a family of Gods with one planet each - in which case were we created by the apprentice ? I think that the Romans and the Egyptians were very practical people - they had many Gods, and so, when they conquered a land they took their God as well. The problem I have with all the World religions is that they place man on a pedestal - even in Buddhism only men get enlightened (not apparently women).
I was not actually expecting anyone to "declare" their hand on each of these. I had rather thought we might put things like Sikhism into a category etc. Also to see if there were other categories I had missed. I think humankind fits into one or more of each of these categories. On your "final comment" point I would say there is no right or wrong starting position. There is no null hypothesis. We are here - fact - that cannot be explained by any rational argument. Therefore god or no god are equally tenable starting points. My point is that being rude about somebody else's starting position is not called for.
I intended (4) to cover multiple gods - but I suppose it misses multiple "uninvolved" gods yes. Space is infinite but that does not necessarily mean other life - it is just mathematically very probable. If there is a god then I assume he is master of the universe - supposedly omnipotent so size is not a problem. He is neither omnipotent nor omniscient if he can forget us - so not much kop at all. Yes a family of gods might do it. Did not know that about Buddhism - is that true?
Maybe there are 2 more strands of belief Leo. The first probably applies to a huge number in that many people are 'cultural' believers ie. religions, in their social aspects reflect themselves in cultures and whole ways of life - if a person is born into this then they may simply reflect the society around them and go along with its norms. The second is someone who sees proof of God all around him - who reasons that such a perfect World (at least in its geographical and natural proportions) cannot have been pure coincidence, such a person is no longer a believer - he thinks he sees God. The latter goes under the precept of 'only a blind man can believe in light', a person who can see does not need to believe in it.
In my case I was merely answering each point honestly. Sikhism comes across to me as more of a cross between Hinduism with more of a warrior code. I have always found Sikhs to be more tolerable than most. The null hypothesis most certainly does apply. How we got here will be a topic for debate for years to come. Suggesting "goddunnit" (a positive claim) without any evidence to support it is dishonest in the extreme. "I don't know" is an honest answer. Not that difficult to understand, really.
On your first point I agree - but those cultural norms will presumably lead them to one of the forms of belief described. Hence so many follow Christianity, Buddhism etc. The second appears to be in box 1 or 2. As for the idea that "only a blind man needs to believe in light" I think it is different. The blind man can test that others have a power he has not - try walking off a platform - those who stop at its edge demonstrate they can see. (I am sure there are better "tests" but that was the first to spring to mind). The person who believes in a creating god is unable to demonstrate god's existence beyond saying the world exists.
Sorry Fez - did not mean any criticism and found your answers interesting. Also agree Sikhism seems closely related to Hinduism. I don't like the phrase "not difficult to understand" as it implies superiorty and is not an argument. A person who disagrees may fully understand but hold a contrary position. Playing devil's advocate (were he to exist) as you know I am actually "with you" on belief in a creating god. The null position is indeed "I don't know" but most people do not like to sit on the fence so they look around and decide what seems more likely given the evidence available to their senses. A creative-god believer finds it self evident that something somewhere at some time was created and calls the creator god. The person who does not believe says as there is no proof I will not assume anything created anything - but he has in reality only stayed in the don't know camp.
I think Leo that there are also different ways of believing in God. There are 3 main aspects of religion. The first is the reliance on scriptures, the second is the personal relationship to a 'God' or creator (The priest cannot control the content of your prayers), and the third is the whole set of practices, rules, customs etc. which accompany the religion. The problem with the first is this imo. You have asked why an omnipotent God could not provide a text which stood the test of time - but language cannot do this, it is set at a point in time in a particular culture, and must be relevant for that culture. Try translating ancient Hebrew into eg. modern English or German and see what comes out. Secondly reliance on scriptures leads to scholarship and the development of the ego which is a great barrier to spirituality, and lastly reliance on scriptures and their translations leads to the development of hierarchy. In other words you then have a stairway to God, with various turnpikes on the way - in order to be called a 'believer' you are then compelled to believe in the infallibility of a hundred and one other persons, priests, bishops, popes, Rabbis etc. They are the people who then decide 'who is a Christian', and I would say, leave that decision to God. Of all Christian sects I am closest to that of the Quaker, because his is the only sect without a hierarchy - where inner revelation has priority, where God is searched for within, and where no earthly titles are recognized (whether secular or otherwise). ie. Christianity for Anarchists (bound to appeal to me).
I awoke this morning thinking did I write that "not difficult to understand" and so I did. My apologies, I usually leave such barbs for flat-earthers on you tube so I withdraw the comment as such (obviously I will not edit it out).
I will return to your 3 aspects of religion later. I did not talk about a text standing the test of time - it is the message and ideas - of course language changes but approving stoning for crimes etc has nothing to do with language. I object to a god who does not make it clear that it is his job to decide when we die and not ours - killing is not our choice. So message - not language. Don't get hung up on scholarship - if the message is clear and simple (hello god are you listening) it will be clear and unambiguous through out time and space. Try an extended commandment "thou shalt not kill; not anyone, not ever, not in war, not Hitler, not in my name; never means never - as god I will kill at my choice and deal with them afterwards - got it? my job - not yours" And so on. All the rest is down to the nature and frailties of man - we are an argumentative species and we like our hierarchies etc - but they are not the essence of belief - they are the trappings of "church" to differentiate with a bad word as I cannot think of a better one - as opposed to religion itself. If god is not able to set a clear message for all time then people who worship him are not getting their money's worth in my opinion.
If God is sending messages to us, then he is doing it in other ways than through language, which is our invention. If 'all killing is wrong', then why was the World arranged so that some species have to eat others in order to live ? Or do the laws of God apply only to man - in which case I come back to my original mantra that man made God in his own image as opposed to the other way around, maybe in order to justify his own dominance over nature. If it is true that animals have souls as well as us, and that only God can kill what he created, then we are well and truly ****ed.
Don't blame me for what it says in the bible - I am only referring to it - for me it is just a poor fairy tale If someone believe in a personal god who cares about us then it is God's job to communicate effectively. He can use language, smoke signals or whatever he likes - he is omnipotent and all wise - you keep forgetting the claims made for him. Language is God's invention - he made us so what we develop is part of his plan - not according to me but to bible believers. We are talking here and now not about spirituality in general but about the bible which says the world effectively was made for man and the animals are there for us. He forbade us killing each other -but clearly not well enough for the message to stick. Read what the bible says about man and animals - I am sure that you have and you don't believe it so that is part of the reason you do not claim to be a Christian. The bible says God made man in his own image - if you think that is back to front you are entitled to that view.
