[ASkolnick]

I don't remember what I was told, but I thought that Einstein was not quite a believer in organized religion, but he did believe in the "spirituality" aspect. Essentially, faith is an important part of whatever you are doing.

Although I am Jewish, the way I see it is all religions are the same. If people are wired differently, and God is all powerful and all knowing, wouldn't he show him/herself to different people in different ways?

For the most part (not extremists), most religions have the same basic theme (be nice to each other and you will have salvation) so there really should be much more tolerance even if the rituals are different.

[onoway]

amen!

[Winstonm]

Quote

Although I am Jewish, the way I see it is all religions are the same. If people are wired differently, and God is all powerful and all knowing, wouldn't he show him/herself to different people in different ways?

Einstein said that the Jews were not a chosen people. That would seem to be in keeping with your sentiments on religions.

[luke warm]

ASkolnick, on May 19 2008, 10:52 AM, said:

Although I am Jewish, the way I see it is all religions are the same. If people are wired differently, and God is all powerful and all knowing, wouldn't he show him/herself to different people in different ways?

he shows himself to all people in the same way(s)... sometimes we don't listen and sometimes we don't see

Quote

For the most part (not extremists), most religions have the same basic theme (be nice to each other and you will have salvation) ...

i don't know of any religion that has that particular theme, though i'll admit i don't know the doctrine of all of them

[jdonn]

luke warm, on May 20 2008, 05:26 PM, said:

ASkolnick, on May 19 2008, 10:52 AM, said:

Although I am Jewish, the way I see it is all religions are the same.  If people are wired differently, and God is all powerful and all knowing, wouldn't he show him/herself to different people in different ways?

he shows himself to all people in the same way(s)... sometimes we don't listen and sometimes we don't see

What way(s) is/are that?

[luke warm]

creation and the conscience... but people deceive themselves about both

[jdonn]

Hard to argue with that...

[matmat]

jdonn, on May 20 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

Hard to argue with that...

no it isn't. it's just plane wrong.

[onoway]

Speaking of conscience brings it all full circle, doesn't it? Isn't what you know of your conscience (i.e. right vs wrong) a direct result of your upbringing?Thus, doesn't it almost entirely depend on where and when you were born and the circumstances arising out of those two things?

Apparently the Inuit have several dozen words for what we call snow. It seems a bit simplistic ( or perhaps even a trifle arrogant?) to think that the questions discussed here can adequately be dismissed with two.

[jdonn]

matmat, on May 20 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 20 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

Hard to argue with that...

no it isn't. it's just plane wrong.

Don't be ridiculous. It has been demonstrated here already that it's very easy to deceive yourself out of obvious truths.

[blackshoe]

James Q. Wilson, in The Moral Sense, hypothesized that humans are born with an innate, albeit perhaps rudimentary, moral sense. What we learn after that is simply icing on the cake, perhaps. Been many years since I read it, but I recall it was thought provoking.

[barmar]

onoway, on May 19 2008, 01:30 AM, said:

I think it unfortunate that so many people who quite reasonably wish to have their rights to be agnostic or atheist respected think it's quite ok to show disdain for people who do have faith.

If I show any specific attitude about them, it's the same feeling I have towards people who are unwilling to learn how to read or do basic math. In my opinion, strong religious belief implies an unwillingness to understand how the world works. "Faith" is equivalent to "giving up". They're essentially saying, "I don't want to discover how X happens, I'm happy just believing God does it magically." Is that defeatist attitude really worthy of respect?

And at least illiterates are only hurting themselves. They don't try to convince other people that they shouldn't learn how to read. There's no Bible of Illiteracy that says that people who can read will burn in hell for eternity (if there were, I guess it would have to be an audio book ).

[luke warm]

barmar, on May 21 2008, 11:31 PM, said:

onoway, on May 19 2008, 01:30 AM, said:

I think it unfortunate that so many people who quite reasonably wish to have their rights to be agnostic or atheist respected think it's quite ok to show disdain for people who do have faith.

If I show any specific attitude about them, it's the same feeling I have towards people who are unwilling to learn how to read or do basic math. In my opinion, strong religious belief implies an unwillingness to understand how the world works. "Faith" is equivalent to "giving up". They're essentially saying, "I don't want to discover how X happens, I'm happy just believing God does it magically." Is that defeatist attitude really worthy of respect?

And at least illiterates are only hurting themselves. They don't try to convince other people that they shouldn't learn how to read. There's no Bible of Illiteracy that says that people who can read will burn in hell for eternity (if there were, I guess it would have to be an audio book ).

this is possibly the most arrogant and ridiculous post i've read in a very long time

[helene_t]

barmar, on May 22 2008, 05:31 AM, said:

They're essentially saying, "I don't want to discover how X happens, I'm happy just believing God does it magically." Is that defeatist attitude really worthy of respect?

Not sure if your description of faith is accurate. If you allow me to play advocate of the devil, I would argue the opposite: a sometimes-heard objection against atheist worldviews is "science doesn't explain everything". So while scientists are happy acknowledging that they can't explain everything (and spend their times on things they can hope to explain), some religious people seem to seek religious answers to questions not answerable by science. While you and I may regard religious answers as non-answers, the religious person may see it differently.

[Gerben42]

Quote

While you and I may regard religious answers as non-answers, the religious person may see it differently.

Religious answers are subjective. If you choose to believe these, I accept that. But personally I cannot accept any such answer to any question. I would much rather accept "I don't know".

But many societies cross the line and turn these religious "answers" into rules. That's not acceptable as it is oppression of those who do not accept the answer religion gives.

So in a sense I share Einstein's skepticism of organized religion. Today it is a Christian holiday, and because work has to be done I will instead go to work on Saturday. On the other hand, the people here in my house do not like me to do my laundry and cleaning on such a holy day. And also not on Sunday of course. Just a small story from an atheist in catholic Bavaria. Well back to my laundry, anyway...

[kenberg]

helene_t, on May 22 2008, 06:14 AM, said:

barmar, on May 22 2008, 05:31 AM, said:

They're essentially saying, "I don't want to discover how X happens, I'm happy just believing God does it magically."  Is that defeatist attitude really worthy of respect?

Not sure if your description of faith is accurate. If you allow me to play advocate of the devil, I would argue the opposite: a sometimes-heard objection against atheist worldviews is "science doesn't explain everything". So while scientists are happy acknowledging that they can't explain everything (and spend their times on things they can hope to explain), some religious people seem to seek religious answers to questions not answerable by science. While you and I may regard religious answers as non-answers, the religious person may see it differently.

A friend of mine grew up in a religious environment in a small Minnesota town. We were grad students together and we would discuss such things. He explained: "When I first cam to the Cities I got to know a lot of different people and I came to see that the case for religion wasn't as strong as I was told that it was. Then I explored some more, and I discovered that the case against religion wasn't as strong as some of my new friends believed". I have always thought this to be a pretty good summary of the situation. Forty-five years later, he lives happily and productively within his faith. I remain a non-believer. We remain friends.


When young I was very literal minded, and to some extent I still am. I am a recovering literalist. So when I was expected to say the Apostle's Creed I would worry about whether I actually believed every thing that I was saying. Not everyone goes at things this way.

[mikeh]

onoway, on May 20 2008, 10:04 PM, said:

Speaking of conscience brings it all full circle, doesn't it?  Isn't what you know of your conscience (i.e. right vs wrong) a direct  result of your upbringing?Thus, doesn't it almost entirely depend on where and when you were born and the circumstances arising out of those two things?

Not in the least. Do some reading on the subject, and you will learn that morality is, to a very large degree, independent of culture and relgion. Which sort of destroys one of the basic arguments of religious beleivers.. that we need some god figure in order not to become selfish, cheating, lying, philandering monsters....I suggest Pinker (How the Mind Works, or The Blank Slate) if Dawkins is too strong for your stomach. (I miswrote the name of te first book, but helene rescued me )

[joshs]

kenberg, on May 18 2008, 03:12 PM, said:

Whatever I may feel about the human capacity for faith, what really astonishes me is that someone would pay 400K for a letter about God. Maybe a letter from God...

Well, for 400K I would expect God's recipe for Chocolate Bread Pudding.

[onoway]

No question a lot of damage has been done over the years by people who have taken advantage of a religious setting to abuse their power and warp the meanings of their religion to their own benefit. I'm not familiar with any part of the bible, for example, which charges the faithful to go out and burn people as witches. I am more familiar with the charge to forgive your enemies and turn the other cheek and the commandment "thou shalt not kill" which apparently didn't originally come with rider clauses of acceptable exceptions.

However, that said, there are horrific examples of people in other organizations also creating havoc and misery, esp. in the area of politics, science and sometimes but usually in more subtle ways, big business. Science has brought us much positive knowlege such as the role of cleanliness in disease and it has also brought us unprecedented pollution and stress on the planet, to say nothing of the various atomic, chemical and biological bombs whose only purpose is to annihilate and/or cause terror, for the benefit of whomever has them.

Science has, as far as I can see, no restrictions or admonitions whatsoever , in practical terms, as far as moral or ethical imperatives go, and politicians ignore agreements made as soon as the agreement interferes with what they want to do ( if they have the power to do so). I'm not sure either is necessarilly superior to an organisation which has admittedly had a lot of people abuse their power in spite of the admonition to behave themselves, but which also gave rise to people such as Mother Teresa. In fact, it all seems very similar to me.

A pox on all their houses?

[jdonn]

helene_t, on May 22 2008, 06:14 AM, said:

barmar, on May 22 2008, 05:31 AM, said:

They're essentially saying, "I don't want to discover how X happens, I'm happy just believing God does it magically."  Is that defeatist attitude really worthy of respect?

Not sure if your description of faith is accurate. If you allow me to play advocate of the devil, I would argue the opposite: a sometimes-heard objection against atheist worldviews is "science doesn't explain everything". So while scientists are happy acknowledging that they can't explain everything (and spend their times on things they can hope to explain), some religious people seem to seek religious answers to questions not answerable by science. While you and I may regard religious answers as non-answers, the religious person may see it differently.

I'm wary to agree with him even a little since I don't hold nearly the same disdain for religious people. I guess the main difference is I don't see it as "lazy" to invent a magical answer to questions simply because we haven't been able to discover the true answer yet. It seems more like human nature to me to want to know the answers to problems and mysteries that are so far unexplained. But it's certainly not the case that religious people don't want answers. As wrong as I think their answers are, they certainly believe very strongly that they are true, they aren't just giving up on the truth.