Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Morality without a God
by David Roffey
"… consolatory nonsense seems to me a fair definition of myth, anyway … Myth deals in false universals, to dull the pain of particular circumstances." Angela Carter
The Preface to Richard Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion, says: "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." On the face of it, a deeply unlikely ambition, and not one that is borne out by the quality of the writing. Along the way, however, it does raise some important questions about the nature of morality, and the relationship of morality to religion.
Let's start with Dawkins' tome …
The God Delusion
Since time immemorial, people have been ascribing what they don't understand to gods and magical beings. This is still the essential argument of many deists, most notably the Intelligent Design / Creationists: "it's too complicated to be explained, therefore a God must have done it". Richard Dawkins, it seems, has had enough of writing popular science texts that attack this idea by explaining the complicated, and has moved on to attack the basic premise.
Dawkins is careful to define the God he is attacking: "a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us." (p.31) and: "in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation." (p.18). Examples: Yahweh, Christ, Allah, but not Buddha or Confucious.
So, we are not here discussing an Einsteinian or Spinozan amorphous belief in (eg) a god or force who designed the universe but has taken no actions in it for several billion years once it was set up or sneezed out of the Great Green Arkleseizure * (busy with some other project?). "To adapt Alice's comment on her sister's book before she fell into Wonderland, what is the use of a God who does no miracles and answers no prayers. Remember Ambrose Bierce's witty definition of the verb 'to pray': 'to ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy'." (p.60)
Failure to understand this distinction as it is intended renders, for example, the New Scientist review of the book meaningless, as well as many other criticisms of it from those who say they do not recognise the God they believe in as the one under attack – simultaneously not recognising that the God they believe in is not the same one that their church, temple or mosque believes in, either.
Second definition: Delusion: "a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence" (MS Word dictionary). Dawkins notes with interest that the illustrative quotation for "delusion" in the Penguin English Dictionary is "Darwinism is the story of humanity's liberation from the delusion that its destiny is controlled by a power higher than itself" (Phillip E Johnson).
Now, clearly any follower of any religion believes that theirs is the only true and valid view. However, there is a wide range of views about what to do about the infidels who don't believe (or, worse, believe in something else). I have a vivid memory of a service led by the saintly Rev Dr Ann Wansbrough which began with a welcome that included the words: "My God loves you whether you believe in him or not." Like everyone else, I also have many vivid memories of news of incidents perpetrated by those who think in more violent terms on how you treat unbelievers. Dawkins' motivation for attacking religion, rather than just ignoring it, is essentially because of the growing prevalence of the fundamentalist and intolerant view amongst followers of many religions (but most particularly in the three Abrahamic faiths). Anyone who has seen Andrew Denton's low-key masterpiece God on my side has seen some good examples. (NB, keep watching to the end of the credits for the best question of the whole film.)
Dawkins has the traditional fun with the myriad contradictions and inconsistencies of the Bible story, and the unlikelihood that anyone could live their life following God's word as set out in it without being banged up for life:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a mysogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." (p.31)
Knockabout stuff, but not really up to the task of persuading the deluded that Dawkins has set himself. A confirmed deist who took on the penance of reading the whole thing will have no difficulty brushing off the rational (after all, faith in the irrational is how they got where they are to start with). They might give up on page 253, just after St Paul is described by Dawkins (with every justification, admittedly) as "barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant".
Which would be a shame, because they'd miss some of the more important questions on the next few pages, as Dawkins raises questions of just what exactly is the morality we can get from religious teachings, and where they can lead us. A few recent debates elsewhere on Webdiary might be illuminated by the discussion of Israeli schoolchildren's reactions to and learnings from the story of Joshua and the battle of Jericho (pp.255-7) [NB – worth reading the whole paper by John Hartung from which Dawkins' discussion is drawn.]
Choosing which of God's Rules to follow
The key point raised is this: clearly, good Christians don't get all of their moral teaching from the Bible, or, more accurately, don't get their moral teaching from all of the Bible – they pick and choose amongst God's word for the principles they feel comfortable with, and discard the ones they don't. Faced with the injunction to " utterly destroy all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword" (and keep the gold for the Treasury), most of us have second thoughts, and those that don't tend to end up on trial, as do those Muslims who follow up on the equally lurid odd passages of the Koran.
We all interpret and choose amongst the moralities set out around us, and the evidence is that the choices that atheists and religious people make when faced with moral dilemmas are very similar (pp.222-6). So, Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov was almost certainly wrong, and without god, not everything is permitted, and not only because "conscience is that inner voice that warns us that someone may be looking" (HL Mencken).
As one of Dawkins' chapter titles asks: why are we good? He provides a good summary of the evolutionary reasons why individuals might be altruistic, generous or 'moral' towards each other: kinship, reciprocation, reputation-building, and advertising ourselves as good breeding mates. Once we started banging the rocks together with a purpose, thoughtful humans have selected towards these characteristics (though not completely – see Capitalism's Moral Bastards). People who care are just more likely to successfully pass on their genes. We don't need that 'someone who may be looking' to be some omniscient and personified surveillance system with a penchant for smiting or torturing for eternity those who transgress.
On the other side, as we've already aired here, those who do want to do almightily awful things to their fellow human beings (and the rest of the denizens of the planet), can find plenty of justification in the weirder outreaches of their holy books.
As Dawkins sees it (and I agree), the big problem with religion is not so much in the detail of the Jericho's and the '72 virgins', but in the absolutism of the handing down of knowledge, and the aversion to discovery (not to mention the whole Armageddon movement and its view of all the fire, flood and disaster as being preliminaries to final days – and thus not only unavoidable / unpreventable, but to be welcomed).
The question is, now that we're applying intelligence as well as instinct and evolution to our morality, just how do we choose the rules we follow from among those set out by our peers, our parents, or our favourite prophet?
=============================================
Morality without a God
As it happens, while I was reading The God Delusion, I was also reading another book covering this ground from a very different direction: Values, Ethics and Society: Exton Land [an alter ego of writer LE Modesitt Jr (LE = Leland Exton)] **
"What is ‘ethical’ or moral? A general definition is that actions that conform to a ‘right set of principles’ are ethical. Such a definition begs the question: Whose principles? On what are those principles based? Do those principles arise from reasoned development by rational scholars? Or from ‘divine’ inspiration? Does it matter, so long as they inspire moral and ethical behaviour? ... In practice, with or without a deity, every action is permitted unless human social structures preclude it. Yet, on what principles are those social structures based? Ethics and morality?
Theocracies and other societies using religious motives, or pretexts, have undertaken genocide, torture, and war. Ideologues without the backing of formal religious doctrine or established theocratic organizations have done the same. The obvious conclusion is that ‘moral’ values must be ethical in and of themselves, and not through religious or secular authority or rationalized logic. This leads to the critical questions: How can one define what is ethical without resorting to authority, religious doctrine, or societal expediency? And whom will any society trust to make such a judgment, particularly one not based on authority, doctrine, or expediency?"
Setting out some principles
On the face of it, the definition of ethical looks pretty straightforward. It is relatively easy to set out a "new ten commandments" that fit most people's ideas of ethics and morality – Dawkins references some of these – and they will have a substantial overlap with the principles in the Sermon on the Mount – which is one of only three incidents in the story of Jesus that are agreed upon by all the Gospel writers (the others being the baptism and the passion week story). The problem is that atheists are no more likely to actually act on those principles in their day-to-day life than Christians are. If you think I'm being harsh, try looking for the frequency of application of a few examples, say (not at all at random): "Agree with thine adversary quickly" or "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you" or "Judge not, that ye be not judged".
The Golden Rule ("do as you would be done by") would tend to come first, followed by "(strive to) do no harm". Of the original Ten (though actually there is not agreement amongst the sects on what the original Ten are), we can fairly easily accept the injunctions against murder, theft and perjury, while wondering how it came that coveting your neighbours' stuff got to be more worth mentioning than, say, rape or child abuse, and not getting too distracted by the thought that at least some sects have used "honour thy father and mother" as justification for forms of the latter.
"To insist that people not annex their neighbor's cattle or wife 'or anything that is his' might be reasonable, even if it does place the wife in the same category as the cattle, and presumably to that extent diminishes the offense of adultery. But to demand 'don't even think about it' is absurd and totalitarian, and furthermore inhibiting to the Protestant spirit of entrepreneurship and competition.": (Christopher Hitchens, in Slate)
Dawkins, with a modern sensibility, argues for "do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of race, sex or (as far as possible) species", "do not indoctrinate your children" and "view the future on timescale longer than your own". (pp.263-5)
However, this only takes us so far along the route. The principles may be clear, but how do we actually operationalise them in our individual lives and police them in society's rules – and how much do we respect other society's/people's different rules.
"Traditionally, one of the fundamental questions behind every considered attempt to define ethical behaviour has been whether there is an absolute standard of morality or whether ethics can be defined only in terms of an individual and the culture in which that individual lives.
Both universal absolutism and cultural relativism are in themselves unethical. Not only is the application of universal absolutism impractical, but it can be unethical, because the universe is so complex that there are bound to be conflicts between standards in actual application, unless, of course, the standards are so vague that they convey only general sentiments.
‘Be kind to one another’ is good general guidance, but it does not qualify as an ethical standard because the range of interpretation of the meaning of ‘kind’ is so broad as to allow individuals incredible discretion. That does not even take into account the problems when society must deal with unethical or violent individuals.": 'Exton Land'
Interpreting the rules
It isn't only the definition of 'kind' that has been a problem. The other big problem in "be kind to one another" has traditionally been the circumscription of 'one another' to a severely reduced subset of humanity. Dawkins points out that the original Ten Commandments' "thou shalt not kill" only applied to other Jews – killing non-Jews didn't count (and in the case of Jericho and numerous other examples was at God's command). For most of history, 'one another' also didn't include any females, or at least not to the same extent – recall that Lot proved his status as the only man worth saving in Sodom by offering his daughters up for gang rape in place of the angels he was sheltering.
The modern response to these dilemmas sometimes seems to be ever more detailed definition of exactly what is or isn't forbidden / punishable / suable for, with piles of precedent and litigation to hone the edges of liability and guilt. Almost makes you want to hark back to the false certainties of doing what the AllFather tells you…
"The Judeo-Christian concept of ‘original sin’ as defined in basic Christian theology was and remains an extremely useful tool for social indoctrination, because (1) it provides a reason for evil while also allowing people to accept that evil is not the fault of the given individual; (2) supplies a rationale for why people need to be taught ethics and manners; and (3) still requires that people adhere to an acceptable moral code.
Only a small minority of human beings have a strong predilection toward either ‘morality’ or ‘immorality’. This has historically posed a problem for any civil society based on purely secular rule because (1) society in the end is based on some form of self-restraint; and (2) the impetus to require self-discipline and to learn greater awareness of what is evil and unacceptable lacks the religious underpinnings present in a theocracy or a society with a strong theocratic presence. Likewise, history has also demonstrated most clearly that the majority of individuals are uncomfortable in accepting a moral code that is not based on the ‘revelation’ of a divine being, because in matters of personal ethics, each believes his or her ethics are superior to any not of ‘divine’ origin.
As transparently fallacious as this widely accepted personal belief may be, equally transparent and fallacious – and even more widely accepted – are the ethical and moral systems accepted as created by divinities – and merely revealed to the prophets of each deity for dissemination to the ‘faithful’. Throughout history, this has been a useful but transparent fiction because the ‘divine’ origin of moral codes obviates the need for deciding between various human codes. Humans being humans, however, the conflict then escalates into a struggle over whose god or whose interpretation of god is superior, rather than focussing on the values of the codes themselves.": 'Exton Land'
Focusing on our values
It really is becoming very important that we try to focus on the values of the codes (and our society) themselves. We have let our society drift for the last fifty years or so along a path where the values of the individual and the market have been allowed progressively to dominate: where the central dogma is that there is no dogma – there is always another way of looking at things - that all voices deserve a hearing, that all points of view have something of value to offer.
"There is indeed an ethical absolute for any situation in which an individual may find himself or herself, but each of these absolutes exists only for that individual and that time and situation. This individual ‘absolutism’ is not the same thing as cultural relativism, because cultures can be, and often have been, totally unethical and immoral, even by their own professed standards. That a practice or standard is culturally accepted does not make it ethical. There have been cultures that thought themselves moral that practiced slavery, undertook genocide, committed infanticide, and enforced unequal rights based on gender or sexual orientation.
The principle practical problems with individual absolutism are that, first, one cannot implement a workable societal moral code on that basis, and, second, that any individual can claim unethical behaviours to be moral in a particular situation, which, given human nature, would soon result in endless self-justification for the most unethical and immoral acts. That said, the practical problems do not invalidate absolute individual morality, only its societal application …
In practice, what is necessary for a society is a secular legal structure that affirms basic ethical principles (eg, one should not kill, or injure others; one should not steal or deceive, etc), and that also provides a structured forum, such as courts, in which an accused has an unbiased opportunity to show that, under the circumstances, his behaviour was as moral as the situation allowed. Such a societal structure works, however, as demonstrated by history, only when the majority of individuals in the society are willing to sacrifice potential self-interest for the value of justice, and such societies have seldom existed for long, because most individuals eventually place immediate personal gain above long-term societal preservation.
The faster and more widely this ‘gospel of greed’ is adopted, the more quickly a society loses any ethical foundation – and the more rapidly it sows the seeds of its own destruction.": 'Exton Land'
The reaction to blatant wrongdoing that contravenes our basic values can be reduced to "well, that's the only way you can do business over there". If the only values we all submit to are the values of the market, then 'a fair go' doesn't get a market value, nor do the rest of the 'Australian Values' the Commonwealth is about to spend a small fortune on in our schools. (Hands up who can name them? - to save you, they are: Fair Go; Care and Compassion; Understanding, Tolerance and Inclusion; Integrity; Doing Your Best; Freedom; Respect; Responsibility - and doesn't our Federal Government stand up for all of these every day as an example to our kids.)
Letting market value determine the rules
"What happens to ethics and morality when economics reigns unchecked – when the negative externalities of not following an ethical course are not included in the marketplace? Laissez-faire economic systems simply assume that everything has a price, and that, if left alone, supply and demand will balance at an optimum price. As a general rule, it works fairly well. Or it does so long as there is an independent moral system underlying it.
Assume everything has a price. Does that mean that ethical behaviour also has a price? And that, if it is scarce, it becomes harder and harder for the average citizen to purchase?
Look at history, How many societies were there where ethical behaviour in trade and government were not the norm, but where bribery was necessary merely to ensure that both merchants and functionaries did their jobs? Then, in the worst cases, whether or not the job was done depended not on ethics, but on market power, on who could pay the highest price. In some societies, that was obvious. In others, that aspect of the market economy is far from obvious. They have an elected government, and everyone can vote. And they have a seemingly open legal system. But that system is based on the assumption that an adversarial system will provide the truth and justice. At times, it does, but only when both advocates are of close to equal ability and when the issues are relatively simple. Most times, the court ends up deciding for the party with the most resources, unless the case happens to be one that is truly egregious. The same thing happens with legislative bodies, because once large nation-states developed and modern communications emerged, the number of citizens represented by each legislator grew so large that only those candidates with the resources to purchase those communications services could reach the citizens. So, in the end, both the laws and their interpretation become commodities purchased by the highest bidders.": 'Exton Land'
How far are we down the road to a society where market power overrules democracy always and everywhere? I'm fascinated by how the Right are divided over this question: while some will protest that all is best in this best of all possible worlds, and our version of democracy is so strong and pure that it must be exported to the rest of the world (at gunpoint, if necessary), there is another faction that may have gotten quieter about the 'greed is good' philosophy since Wall Street, but basically believes it still.
The latter view is often mixed up with some simplistic interpretation of Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', and views such as this:
"The rich ... divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal proportions among all its inhabitants." Adam Smith (1759), The Theory of Moral Sentiments. London: A. Millar, 1790. Part IV. Of the Effect of Utility upon the Sentiment of Approbation in paragraph IV.I.10
This earlier 'invisible hand', which predates the more famous one in the later Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), exposes the habitual misapplication of the term, because The Theory of Moral Sentiments is imbued throughout by the unstated assumption that the aforementioned rich operate in a society with a shared set of values ('moral sentiments') based on pervasive agreements on ethics and morality that our society has largely left behind (or reserved for a small and compartmentalised segment of life).
A 'crisis of faith'?
There is some (mostly anecdotal) evidence that the general run of our society is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the direction we are taking. Whether this unease or malaise is going to translate into action is far from clear.
"A societal crisis of faith occurs when the values that produced a particular incarnation of a society no longer correspond to the values held by the individuals and organisations holding economic, political, and social power in that society. Paradoxically, these value changes seem to occur first on a social level. In reality the changes are already far advanced by the time they appear, because in most societies social standing and mobility lag behind economic and political power. Those with economic power seldom wish to flaunt values at variance with social norms, and those in the political arena prefer a protective coloration that in fact straddles the perceived range of values, while ostensibly preferring the most popular of values …
Although all stable societies rest firmly on a consensus of values, invariably the individuals in those societies prefer not to discuss those values, except in glittering generalities, not because they are unimportant, but because they are so important that to discuss them seriously might open them to question and interpretation. Thus, the very protections of a society’s values preclude any wide-scale and public re-evaluation of those values and any recognition of a potential crisis of values.": 'Exton Land'
The need for a new consensus
We are coming to a period where the challenges to society are going to require actions that need a radical change to the fundamental ethics we hold so deeply that we haven't hardly questioned them at all. Only a short while ago, our Prime Minister got away almost unquestioned with the theory that we couldn't possibly consider doing anything about the future of the planet if it was going to potentially cost Australian jobs: even now the rhetoric is still (qua the Stern review) that saving the planet is only on the agenda because it might not cost any jobs after all.
We need a new consensus on morality and ethics. Coming full circle to where we started, I don't think we can look to religion to get us there, because although there are many wonderful and moral people in all major religions, large factions of the religious hold to various versions of either "let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth", or "these are the latter days, fire and flood, and there is nothing we can do to stop it" – this last being a direct quote from conversation with a famous Australian of evangelical bent.
Where are we going to get our consensus? Everywhere, I guess. David Curry's boy gets his worldview at least in part from The Lion King. Probably a better place to start than The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which in the film version at least was so heavily into the Church Militant and smiting that I ended up cheering for the Witch. I, in my turn, have taken much of my text from the sidebars of a novel.
However we get there, the process must be at least as moral and ethical as the result.
"From the beginning of human history, there has always been a debate over the ethics of ends and the ethics of means. Can a good and ethical solution result from the use of unethical or immoral means? Does the end justify the means? Virtually all ethicists would agree that, of course, it does not, because, first, actions should be ethical in and of themselves, and, second, because corrupt means almost invariably result in corrupting the ends."
=============================================
Notes
* "The Jatravartid People of Viltvodle Six firmly believe that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure. They live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming Of The Great White Handkerchief." The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: Dawkins' book is dedicated to Douglas Adams.
** 'Exton Land's writings are scattered through the section and chapter headings of Modesitt's books: all of the quotes above come from The Ethos Effect. As David Brin noted in the speech cited in the text, science fiction is one of the places where human creativity can explore the big questions without getting bogged down in the specifics of history and particular hard cases.
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Fiona: Do you want to get Alf arrested?
Fiona: I have seen Alfred Lord Tennyson's Crossing the Bar referred to by the eminent literary critic of the Canberra Times (Maurice Dunlevy) as the most exquisitely perfect poem ever written. Or words to that effect.
For my money, It is between that one and Coleridge's Frost at Midnight. And one or two others, perhaps. But as all art appreciation is subjective, and there are no rules or yardsticks (nb I have been presented with arguments to the contrary) that will have to be that.
Most eminent poets' collected works contain a small percentage of gems amid an awful lot of potch, in my experience. Coleridge no exception. Nor Tennyson, nor old Bill, nor the great McGonagall.
Fiona: Ian, I have my views about Tennyson, and if anyone doesn't share them that's their problem, not mine. However, I will concede that even the worst of them can come up with a gem from time to time.
Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Poet Laureate
As the most evil siren I have ever met once wrote to me of his Lordship's prowess:
She had a strange sense of humour but no staying power. Thank goodness for cervical cancer. Dunno whether the rosebushes survived: count them, ye rosebuds, as ye may but don't count them northwest of Hay.
Myth
F. Kendall, what, the Placebo lyrics? I like them, you don't have to. Uncle Tom is a reference to Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin which was a condemnation of slavery in America. Ebonics are words derived from African-American culture like "Mother-fucker". Placebo is against what Gangsta-Rap represents - sexism and violence - though, there is another song on the album which is a duet between a black rap artist of more enlightened views. It is about American cultural imperialism - we seem to inherit even their guilts.
The reference to his "Mom" is doubtless not his own Mother, else he would not have Americanised it. He says "Hi Mom" in such a way that whilst it is gentle and sincere, somehow conveys the horror this fictious American Christian Mother would have at a son like Brian, who is flagrantly bisexual and hedonistic. I suppose I was trying to scare Jenny Hume a little, though, she is doubtless too sophisticated for that - so it was just play.
There is something Oedipal about Brian writing a pornographic novel for his Mother, which to me is relevant to my interest in Greek myth. Eros is actually the son of Aphrodite (Venus), who became jealous of Psyche's beauty and her rival. I am curious about Aphrodite's relationship with her son, as there is so much incest in Greek myth. To me myths have a greater significance than being "consolatory nonsense" as the Angela Carter quote up top suggests.
Mike, I just posted a long post on violence in Islam on the flag thread, since it was raised there. I think specific creeds may be more conducive to violence, for example, Al Qaeda, though in general terms there is nothing fundamentally violent about either belief or unbelief. I should have made that clear in my last post.
The dream is over
Mike Lyvers, a militant atheist is someone who is aggressive and belligerent in their beliefs. The word "militant" can mean violent tendencies but it doesn't necessitate it, and, in the context in which I used it didn't imply any such meaning. It is a common enough phrase - I certainly didn't invent it.
However if you want examples of violent atheism I refer you to the former Soviet Union and Communist China. I don't subscribe to the belief that either religious or secular belief systems are inherently more blood-thirsty than one another. I think it is a vulgar argument that exploits the dead, to settle personal grievances.
Indeed John Lennon did sell more than Dawkins ever will but it doesn't alter my opinion of either of them. Tell me if you think "God" is commercial.
I haven't read Dawkins book because I don't care to. I have read plenty of that kind of stuff before, judging from the extracts. I don't have a problem with it I just don't think I fit in to its target market. Not because I am a church-goer but because it doesn't interest me - I feel like I have kind of been there and done that. I expect the Sunday night sermon to be about this very book, criticising it, but also recommending that Christians go ahead and read it anyway.
Solomon, you haven't read Dawkins' book, therefore
....therefore you cannot express an informed opinion about it. So don't waste our time.
As I said in a previous post to someone else who brought up the same point, in both China and the USSR atheist intellectuals were also relentlessly persecuted by the Communists as a matter of principle. Communism is not atheism, but a religion-like ideology where figures such as Mao and Lenin take the place of God. Psychologically I suspect it is essentially the same phenomenon.
Solomon Wakeling: Can
Solomon Wakeling, can you please explain the significance of those last lines that you quoted? Apologies, but they sound fatuous to me. What is the profundity/importance that I am missing?
Jenny Hume, what significance did you derive from the unusual events you relate preceding your brother's death? Did you understand it to be people relating their truth? Or their delusion? Did you see it as supranatural?
I apologise if such questions are too blunt or painful.
Divine presence and scared out of my wits
Mike, I had no reason to question any three of the people in relation to the events I spoke of. They were real for them and since I had a similar event in relation to the same brother just months before I see none of these events as delusions. They were all too similar and I see all as a manifestation that a divine presence was watching over the family at that time. And that is all I will say on this matter. There is simply nothing further to debate in my opinion. One either accepts it or one doesn't. I do.
That was not the first time any of our family had these types of experiences. Maybe God does reveal himself to believers. After all much of Christianity tells us that God is with you. Seek and you will find.
Re: your remark to Solomon about militant atheism, did you see the SBS program last night on the Waffen SS and how they were told to destroy all Christian crosses and churches and that Hitler was their virtual God. The record of brutal deliberate murder by the SS gives ample testament I would think as to how militant atheism is used to commit probably some of the worst atrocities in human history, and on an unimaginable scale. So do not tell me the SS were Christians please. As Roger said they may profess to be so for convenience, yet they then went out on the orders of Hitler and his henchmen to destroy very human being that got in their way, and any symbols of their religion. Not Christians in my book.
Solomon, I do not scare easily and it would take more than lines from a poem my friend. And no point trying snakes, spiders, heights, shadows in the dark or threat of death either. The latter I would regret on behalf of my loved ones left behind who I think would miss me, but I myself would be with the ones gone before. If you want to scare me you could try........well I would have to really think about that as nothing jumps to mind, though I guess there are situations in which most people would be terrified, like meeting the SS, or a psychopath. But there are those who are seemingly fearless, such as some children with ADHD and they are at very great risk.
Mind you my doctor once thought I was a battered woman. I always turned up covered in bruises and finally she sat me down and said: Who did this to you Jenny in a very concerned compassionate voice. Full marks to her for her observations but I replied. No 609 I think. Or it may have been 420, or 230 or 62. Now when you work that one out Solomon let me know. That is your homework for thinking you could scare me. If 609 could not do it, then not much could. She was dynamite. See, I even give you a clue.
The builders are up so I have to go. Have a nice day.
Sorry Jenny, but most Nazis were Christians.
Their slogan was "God is with us!" Why do you think they were so keen to kill those Christ-killing Jews? Many Nazis believed that Hitler was the second coming. Such delusional thinking becomes even more likely when you take delusions seriously to begin with as a matter of principle, or "faith."
Sorry Mike, but the Nazis despised Christianity
Mike, it’s wrong to argue that because Germany was a predominantly Christian country when Hitler came to power, the Nazis were Christians. One of the most highly respected books written about the Nazis is The Third Reich – A New History, by Michael Burleigh. Here are some quotes from it in relation to the Nazis and Christianity:
Jenny is spot on in identifying the ‘Hitler cult’, which is the main thesis of Burleigh’s book, rather than Christianity, as what the Nazis were really about. Burleigh again:
response to David
response to jenny
Jenny, you claim atheists have a "need" to lack faith in God. That doesn't follow; faith reflects a need, whereas the lack thereof reflects the overcoming of infantile dependency needs in the face of reality. The notion that one is watched over by a loving father-figure in the sky is most comforting. It takes a high level of honesty and maturity to accept the fact that such a belief is a delusion, mere wishful thinking - just as is a belief in life after death (an oxymoron if there ever was one!). The universality of religion is a byproduct of the extended parental dependency of humans and will not go away anytime soon, if ever. Dawkins may dream of an enlightened world without the God delusion but it certainly won't happen in our lifetime. Nevertheless, particular forms of religion come and go; Islam may largely replace Christianity within the next century, for example.
As for Hitler and the Nazis not believing in God, their slogan "Gott mit uns!" somehow does not strike me as one an atheist movement would choose!
Let it be Mike
Mike, honesty and maturity have nothing whatsoever to do with a belief in God and your term 'infantile dependency' is just plain silly. And life after death is just an oxymoron is it? Well that is just an opinion which cannot be tested one way or another.
And yes, I believe some people do need to be atheists. Christians feel certain constraints in terms of how they live their lives. Some atheists really need to disavow any religious belief in order that they feel no such constraints.
But as someone said here neither of us are going to change what we believe. I may be wrong, but there is just as big a chance that you and Dawkins are so there is no point in further exchanges about all this. So I suggest we just let it be. I am a Christian, you are an atheist, and never the twain can meet.
Others have taken you up on the Nazi issue so I will not comment further on that either.
Nazis and slogans
Mike, from the outset I should say that I am not religious - not even baptised or such. But you are a little astray with some parts of your history. "Gott mit uns" was not a nazi slogan, it was the motto on the belt buckle worn by the Heer - the German army. Incidentally it was illegal for a member of the army to be a member of the Nazi Party and even Mr Hitler did not alter this. That is not to say that some were not Nazis though. The SS belt buckle had "Mein ehre heist treue", which translates to Loyalty is my honour. This is off the top of my head so apologies if the spelling is a little off.
I used to get very worked up about religion, but decided life is too short. You won't change your mind and Jenny won't change hers. Live and let live?
Sorry Solomon, I am interested in military history but I'm not a buff - that is when you shine something.
Atheists delude themselves too Mike
Mike, it seems to me to be very important to you that you convince yourself that atheists have never in the name of atheism incited others to commit atrocities. Well I suggest to you that is just a delusion as the 20th Century gives considerable evidence to the contrary. In fact much more concrete evidence than Dawkins can give to the believers that their belief in a God is just a delusion.
If we accept that some believers actually need to believe, then it also follows that some atheists will need to have faith in their atheism, and for them to have that challenged is just as threatening to them as it is for a faith dependant believer to have his or her faith challenged.
As for me, neither Dawkins nor anyone else can threaten me by questioning my faith or suggesting I am deluded in holding it.
And if you cannot understand that atheists might try and hide behind God to give credence to their heinous deeds, then you and I are not likely to find much agreement here. So be it. Cheers anyway.
Fiona, well now, Alfie Lord T and I get along quite well. But thanks for the wishes, but it is next week. This week I am at Goulburn acting as builder's labourer, tea lady and general gopher. Today the builders, (husband and brother) were in dispute on the roof, while I gave advice from below, the best being: The kettle is on, I suggest you both come down and only one go back up.
That they did and the job got finished without further ado. What would these men do without us?
Awake
David, that is funny, it never occurred to me not to visit Jim Morrisson's grave. They appear to have cleaned much of the graffiti off the surrounding graves from the period when the Oliver Stone film was made. Though there was plenty on other graves that were not really even in the vicinity, which was confusing because I was already lost. You would think that if you see scrawlings about "The doors of perception" that you are close, but, no.
I think Morrisson is given exactly the credit he deserves, which is that of a decent Rock star who had vain pretensions of being a poet. Though not all of his poetry is as bad as they say. The only Doors album I have ever owned was An American Prayer but I appear to have lost it.
Funny how we treat death.
Uncle Tom
Thank you, Jenny. Your thoughts are moving. I have my own reasons for my love of Indigenous belief but I wont say them. I considered leaving my church because it is likely I will be moving away and thought it best to start anew. I think this is how all people leave their faith - no-one just stops going, they assure their friends that they will be sure to attend another church and that their faith is stronger than ever.
It may be possible to continue, though, as I will still have to come back here to visit my Mother and, if at all possible, continue with my volunteer work. It occurred to me that I need not always do violence to my life and that a bit of continuity may be useful, especially in something that has been so transforming for me. We shall see - nothing in my life is certain right now. I sit here waiting, as if for a verdict, with nothing left to do but pray.
I have been thinking a little more about the novel I plan to write. I have been inspired by the song Blue American by Placebo. They are not actually American - Brian Molko sings it in his macabre English accent, but using the American "Mom" to rhyme with "Uncle Tom". Truly the most interesting band around lately.
"I wrote this novel just for you
That's why it's vulgar
That's why it's blue
And I say, thank you
And I say, thank you
I wrote this novel just for Mom
For all the mommy things she's done
For all the times she showed me wrong
For all the time she sang god's song
And I say thank you Mom
Hello Mom
Thank you Mom
Hi Mom"
I think it is possible to write something that is at once deeply Christian but also deeply obscene, with The Song of Solomon as my moral guide. Sexuality is about compassion, anyway. You have given me courage with your approval of Mills & Boon.
thanks Jenny for the good guts
Jenny Hume: “Religious beliefs are an integral part of many cultures, even ours. It is through religion that millions still find spiritual happiness.”
“I say teach children about evolution, teach them about religion, and not just Christianity, teach them all the sciences, and let them decide when they grow up whether they want to pursue that knowledge further, or follow a religion or not. As I said, whether there is a God or not, religion can fill a huge need in many people. We should not try to take that from them.”
I don’t think anyone could argue with that and I certainly won’t.
I was fortunate enough to be exposed to such an environment and by my late teens had been introduced to quite a variety of belief systems. My parents, although atheists believed in Jesus and his message, and also respected the wisdom of the more cerebral eastern religions.
My grandmother was a treat, who had tried about everything from the JWs to Buddhism, even a short flirt with communism and died an atheist. Being brought up in the bush, in the late 1800’s, she also intrigued me with stories about the local aboriginal tribes, their customs and ceremonies. I lived with my Grandmother for quite a number of years on and off, in a small flat with an intriguing library. A world of information about religion, philosophy, psychology and tucked away at the back a copy of The Kinsey Report, interesting stuff for a thirteen year old.
Yes religion is most definitively an integral part of our cultures and in many cultures it not only gives spiritual happiness, something I would personally define as being compleat, but a working man’s guide to survival.
After my Grandmother died I took a greater interest in our indigenous culture and the rather elegant manner in the way their religion complemented their survival skills. The Dreamtime (as I understood it) being a process where mythology was intimately entwined with an empirically compiled survival guide, producing a beautiful tapestry of relationship, the relationship of a community with their forna and flora, the heavens and Earth, life and death; without a beginning and without an end, where time was nothing. It worked for them for many thousands of years. We all know who brought it all to an end.
I suppose if you were lost in the out back of Australia would it be the Pope’s god or David Gulpilil’s god who saves you?
But there is another side to religion, for as religions grow the inevitable power structures develop where the gatekeepers enjoy immense power and influence. Quite often the good guts of a religion is willingly sacrificed at the hands of the gatekeepers who are inevitably seduced by the aphrodisiac of power, adulation and the ability to control their loyal yet innocent followers. We all know this well for it would be hard to argue that the Pope or George Pell don’t live in luxury while many of their followers starve. When religion becomes a business the followers are merely customers.
What would Jesus say?
At this stage of my long journey I have come to realise that the good guts of all religions and belief systems have provided me with a very personal workings man’s guide to survival; with the Tooth Fairy, not so much a God, rather the Patron Saint of all that is innocent and all that connects us in an unexplainable yet intimate manner. She makes my life comlpeat.
Fear not my fellow traveller for words are merely words and usually we know deep in our hearts what is good and what is not good. As Robert Pirsig said:
Roger and Solomon - a nice start to the day
Roger and Solomon, well the builders are out for the count while the labourer is up and about. Why is it that women seem to have so much more stamina than men? I've taken them both a cup of tea to let them know dawn is here.
Both your comments to me show the wisdom of those who have really thought about all this and who are comfortable with where your spiritual journey has taken you. And I really enjoyed reading both - a nice start to the day.
I was amused Roger over your Dad's last request. A bit like my old mum who struggled financially nearly all her life, and who said that all she wanted on her headstone were the words: here lies one who paid every debt she owed. It was a matter of honour to her. My atheist husband said she was the most Christian woman he had ever known and with that I agree. It would not hurt some of the young to take a leaf out of that generation's book from time to time. That is one of the reasons I think documenting their life histories is so important, for the legacy such leaves for future generations.
As for indigenous culture and belief. One of the most memorable experiences of someone dying was in Darwin in the early 1960s when I was nursing on what was then a native ward (yes true segregation) and at about 2am I was doing my rounds with my torch to check all the patients. A very very old full blood aboriginal woman who was in her last days called me over and said she wanted to sing me her tribal song. I stood there spellbound as the most beautiful and haunting melody was hummed to me. The next morning she died. Moments like that add spiritual value to your life forever.
As for being lost in Central Australia, I think God would abandon me, saying: not again. She can find her own way out this time. I once led two German tourists in the King Ranges into a rocky dead end. I had been asked to take them back to camp while the leader took others the more adventurous way home. I missed one of the arrows on the barren rocks and got completely lost for at least an hour. I don't think the leader, waiting back at camp would ever have gotten over the fright I gave him. My English friend did not help by answering when asked by him as to whether it was likely I could get lost by saying: Jenny and I have been a week in Alice and she cannot yet find the motel, I have to lead her home. Most encouraging but she was telling the truth. No sense of direction here I'm afraid so best I never venture outback too far, just in case you are all right, and I am wrong.
And I agree, the religious bureaucracies have done more harm to religious belief than any suicide bomber in many ways. I was particularly disgusted that a certain GG was reported as still qualifying for his large pension after being forced out after only a short time in the job over that sex abuse fiasco during his time in the Church. It should have all gone to womens' refuges instead.
Solomon, I loved the Musee Rodin. Such quiet and peace and calm embodied in his beautiful craft. I am glad you are still connected with your church and I agree, we all know the doubts that overcome us from time to time, but you sum it all up beautifully. I wish I could express myself as well as that. When I get a chance I must send you one of the little booklets I get regularly called Daily Bread. Each quarter they contain a lift out on a certain chapter of the Bible, to help one get to know that chapter better. Being a lazy Bible reader I find it gives me basic knowledge of the Bible much quicker.
Well the builders are both up and there's no loaves, let alone fishes in the house so that's my job to organise too I suppose. Cheers
Belief
Mike Lyvers, mature Christians are comfortable with both belief and unbelief. They consider doubts as a natural part of the journey and will, from time to time, walk on both sides of the street. In that way I think they are more sophisticated than someone like Dawkins, who sees the world through a single prism. They have secular reasons as well as faith-based reasons for sticking with their religion, like marriages, friends and children, so to attack their faith alone is never going to work. It also provides a place where people can discuss the deeper meaning of life, which is often simply ignored by the wider world. Many of the Christians I know are surprisingly relaxed about the possibility of the non-existense of God - the usual refrain is: well, what have I got to lose?
There are answers I could provide to that question, but they are not the answers that would suit these people.
I think the people that become defensive are those that get caught up in the tit-for-tat debates, like the evolution debate, more from exhaustion than anything else. I used to read them in High School but now have no interest in them. I used to debate with a Christian apologist about the existense of God. When I finally beat him, using all my powers of reason, he informed me that his belief was faith-based and that he only discussed these things for sport. It simply didn't matter. I am sure for a believer to debate with a militant atheist there would be similar revelations of the pointlessness of it all - they usually do it because they have an axe to grind and are actively opposed to religion and are not disinterested observers.
I prefer an unbeliever like John Lennon, who has something to say, to someone like Dawkins, who has something to sell.
PS Solomon
Very funny, Solomon!
He's hot. He's sexy. He's dead.
I prefer Cupid, Fiona. He has been too long corrupted by greeting cards and needs to be rehabilitated. Eros has been over-exposed. Speaking of which, I saw an exhibition of erotic sketches and sculptures in the Musee De Rodin. There was a sculpture of Balzac there and seeing his rippling muscles and giant hand fondling an erect phallus, I thought fondly of you and your attempt to corrupt me with Balzac. Incidentally he had no head - apparently Rodin thought it superfluous. Rodin is more muscular - even homoerotic - than Canova and not really to my taste. Yet I respect him.
I also saw Zola's grave in the Cimitrie De Montmartre. I couldn't be bothered walking up the hill of the Pere Lachaise cemetry to see Proust or Wilde's grave, though I did make the effort to visit one James Douglas Morrison. People are still laying flowers on his grave and there is a fence to stop you getting in and de-facing it.
Paris itself is like a graveyard. I even spent a day in the catacombes with a girl from Melbourne. The cathedrals are lovely and people seem to make use of them for traditional purposes, as well as to sight-see. In Notre-Dame they had a glass box to put messages of peace in and I wrote "No war" on one, in capitals. I made sure to say a prayer in each church I passed. Having attended church and bible-study for about a year now I know better now what to prayer for - not the fulfillment of your wants, but the strength to accept disappointment if you don't get them.
Visiting graves
Solomon, it didn't occur to me to visit the Lizard King's grave in Paris, although as a Rock history geek I would have been interested. Morrison is hugely overrated, in my opinion, some great moments on the first Doors album notwithstanding. Live fast, die young, make a good looking corpse, and you're an instant legend.
My sister told me a story about visiting Beethoven's grave (in Vienna, I think). She loves his music. On the day she chose to visit the cemetery there was barely a cloud in the sky, the air was still, the birds were singing. As she got closer to his grave the sky suddenly clouded over and by the time she got there the heavens had opened up and were sending bolts of lightning at the ground, thunder crashing in all directions. She got soaked.
How perfect is that?
Sorry Mike
Hey Mike, I have replied but it hasn't been published. No response from the editors either as to why. Looks like I'm going to join Jay's group and have posts disappear. In which case what's the point of having a site at all?
Hi Jenny, clearly I have no wish for arguments. Challenges I do respond to, always have. The reason I responded to Mike's first rant was simple. It's as per your second last paragraph in your most recent post.
Mike can't see that or doesn't want to. Either way it's irrelevant as you say.
Hope you do visit again though, this thread, as I want to repeat my email address for contact re getting a copy of your book. Can I buy it anywhere by the way? Email one is cobbncoweb@hotmail.com.
Would go through editors etc. as you suggested but my posts suddenly are not appearing after trying to respond to Mike in kind. Nor do I get email replies or advice on the disappearing when asked for.
To pre-empt the volunteer issue. I have worked on WD as a volunteer editor for quite some time. Not a lot but I was good at it. Yet....
Enough 2 Party barracking.
David C: Hi Ross, your last post was held up because the editor at the time was genuinely confused as to what you were talking about. I must admit I was a bit confused by it, too. You seemed to be suggesting that a Webdiary editor was ‘playing favourites’ by holding up a prior post to deliberately put your reply to Mike Ivers out of sequence – I think. That editor has, I understand, been in touch with you to explain that your original post was only held up to seek a second opinion from other editors, which happens frequently. I can see no bias in this.
As an ex-editor I’m sure you understand there are many posts that are hard to make a ruling on. If editors have any doubts about a post, they hold it in the approval queue and seek opinions from the other editors. This can take a day or more, depending on how quickly the other editors get the email, but surely it’s better than just junking the post. David Roffey may be able to clarify this, but I assume that posts delayed in this way eventually go up on the site in the order they were posted. If they don’t, it’s an unintended consequence of giving a borderline post the chance to be published. I don’t see how that’s unfair.
Ross - will get back to you
Ross: I have noted your email and when I get back home I will organise with you to send you the book. I am currently doing builder's labourer duty at the old family home, not my cup of tea but it is all hands on deck. We have just pulled down an 1857 chimeny and it has made the most frightfull mess, plus the whole front is off the house for restoration. So not time really to blog on. And we need to get it all finished before I go out of action for a few days with the knee op. Then it is back to deal with the farm and the drought. Ever decreasing circles it seems.
Mike: No I do not agree. It seems to me it is more often people who do not believe who are the ones that are defensive. So they resort to ridicule to try and explain away what they cannot understand, ie another person' faith. But as I said, that is not my problem. Those believers who may feel threatened seem to me to be those who are really dependant on their faith for their sanity and survival. So ridiculing them can be quite devastating. So I never put anyone down or ridicule them on the basis of their faith. One does not know what harm one can do till it is often far too late.
Even many atheists I find are quite defensive, and who knows what unpleasant experiences through the church they may have had. So I do not believe in making assumptions about anyone either on the basis of their faith, or their non belief.
Anyway, as I said I do not want to continue and I am quite tired so I am off to bed. Cheers.
In Summary and thanks F Kendall
I suppose a quick summary of this thread could go something like this:
Please feel free to believe and have faith; that’s OK by me so long as your beliefs do not impact negatively on those around you.
F Kendall, thanks and most appreciated
How lucky I am
I feel lucky to be able to hear of and honor a fine man such as your father, Roger Earl.
F Kendall You got me on that one
F Kendall, no alternative mate (or matress), for we cannot choose our parents. Plato’s alternative was to get rid of parents and start afresh (The Republic), but we all know Plato was just a dreamer. Sadly, some took him seriously (think Neocons and Pol Pot) and boy, what a mess.
We may to some degree or another suffer the sins of the father, and if I had the answers nobody would listen anyway.
As far as the Guardian thing goes, under the circumstances I am quite prepared to take your word on that one. Cheers.
We have all been dead before
My Father died many years ago from wounds he received during WW2. As I held him close his last words were:
He was the most honest Christian atheist one could meet.
He once said to me he had never been afraid of death for we all know what it is like to be dead, just like it was before you were born.
Eros
Nous sommes enchantés, cher Solomon, de vous rencontre. Alors, to return to our muttons. If you are going to be serious about Psyche, please call her lover by his proper name. And, while you are about it, have a look at Apuleius’s exquisite work The Golden Ass. Robert Graves (who sometimes knew what he was on about, particularly in this field) did a remarkably fine translation. One of my all-time favourites.
I recommend it.
Speaking of Eros ...
You can try the much newer Living next door to the god of love, by Justina Robson (I'm not usually into cyberpunk, but there's some great ideas here ...
Hello Roger Earl
Hello Roger Earl. Mate, that talkboard on Guardian Unlimited Talk has finished, closed and disappeared, so you will have to remain sceptical, if you doubt my observations.
You say: "I have observed that the mind of a child quite often becomes the fertile (if innocent) garden for the perpetuation of their parents' fears and prejudices."
You're saying: "They f**k you up, your mum and dad." Just like Philip Larkin said.
Of course they do.
What's your alternative?
Come from Lebanus,
Come from Lebanus, come, come. Come from Lebanus, come. Thou hast wounded my heart, my sister, my spouse. Thou hast wounded my heart.
Lord knows what that all means, but I loved the poetry. I'm a new testament person, myself.
Cupid and Psyche
And thanks, Jenny, for saying I would make a good writer. I am going to write a novella inspired by the sculptures of Antonio Canova that I went to see in the Louvre. It shall be called simply "Cupid and Psyche". (In French Cupid is called l'amour). I have had this idea since 2002 when I first saw pictures of them and when it had some resonance for me as I was dating a psychology student. Psyche was the rival of Venus in Greek myth. Canova was, obviously, Italian (actually Venetian) but his sculptures are more in the French style. Similar to Bartolini, who I also saw in the Louvre.
What I want to achieve is something of Canova's grace and tenderness in print. My moral guide is Fitzgerald, who sub-titled Tender is the night as "A romance", but in execution he is far too brittle. I understand what he meant but I think the kind of prose I would be reaching for would be much softer, more flowing. Gentle as Proust but as earthy as Carson McCullers.
Christian impressionist painter Maurice Denis, whom I saw an exhibition of in the Musee de Orsay, also used the myth of Cupid and Psyche in his work, so perhaps to do so isn't wholly heretical. See here. I hardly even know the myth, I've more been inspired by aesthetics than any particular symbolism.
I am posting on Webdiary again because I am essentially an orphan now that all my other excursions have led to nowhere and I need somewhere to write. I consider reviewing MK's book as really my last chance to get it right. I have been hit and miss for too long.
Richard: Good to have you around again, M'sieur
Doves' eyes
Jenny, I have never really read the competition. I suppose that is a necessity. I don't think Miller or Nin count as romance novelists. I think the Salvation Army sells romance novels in bundles of ten. Might be better than spoiling all my credibility at the book exchange, where they know me for buying the classics. The bible itself has some of the most romantic literature ever written, like The Song of Solomon.
KJV 1:2: Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine.
KJV 1:7: Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions?
KJV 1:13: A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.
KJV 1:15: Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes.
KJV 5:8: I charge you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if ye find my beloved, that ye tell him, that I am sick of love.
Re: Dove's Eyes
Yeah, right: small, beady, widely spaced and not atttached to very much brain. Perfect sort for you is it Solomon Wakeling?
I've always said travel narrows the mind.
OK Jenny, so death is great!
What's wrong with voluntary euthanasia then? Seems to me that its mainly Christian types who oppose. But why put roadblocks in the way of a shortcut to heaven?
Lest we forget the most famous individuals of recent years who fervently believed in a glorious afterlife: the September 11 hijackers.
Not much to agree on really
Yes Mike, for the believer death is not the end so believers do not fear it. It is the dying process that may not be so great. And death of a loved one is not great for the one being left behind to grieve on earth. How many times have you heard one such say, if only I could go too? Or, I will be glad when my time has come and I can join my loved ones. As the widow in the film The Music Teacher said as she watched her husband being rowed away for burial: Let my time pass quickly now. Solomon, you would really enjoy that film. It is in French but has subtitles. Great music, Jose Van Dam stars and his singing is just superb.
As for the suicide bombers Mike, wilful murder and suicide to a Christian is forbidden, including by voluntary euthanasia, but that does not really impede any non Christian seeking to end their life prematurely. I cannot recall what the Koran says on either score. But the suicide bombers from a Christian point of view would miss out on both scores and if there is a glorious after life, then those individuals are highly unlikely to be getting to enjoy it.
Now, you seem to have a problem with believers in God and an afterlife, but I think you would agree that is not my issue.
And I notice a tendency to ridicule belief in God on this thread. Well ridiculing belief I think is wrong. There are so many suffering people out there for whom their belief is very very important. Provided belief is not used to harm, why should it be ridiculed?
Probably there is not much point me making any further input on this thread. So I will leave you all to amuse yourselves. There can be no meeting of the mind between believers and non believers really, so why do we bother.
perceptions
Jenny, all too often what believers perceive as "ridicule" is really just non-believers stating things as they see it. You would probably offend flat-earthers by stating that the earth is round, not flat. There is a sensitivity about religion that demands an explanation. I find this fascinating. As I've said before, I think it may have to do with the deep-seated doubts and lack of true faith of a great many believers, who do not wish to have such feelings and truths dredged up within themselves. Perhaps all the fundamentalism we are seeing today is the death cry of religions.
Softer than the rain
This and that
Solomon, well the print is huge on bro's computer so I hope it is smaller when posted. Me not read a romance? Let me tell you I am a hopeless romantic. And who wouldn't swoon over Mr Darcy? Beside my bed at the moment is Marr's biography of Patrick White, a History of the World Religions, the Bible (thought I better check out Leviticus), a couple of obscure novels, and yes a flamin' Mills and Boon. You do in fact find the odd one that is not a bad yarn you know. And who needs brain stimulating after a day in the sun as a builders labourer which is my lot this week. At the end of the day even Winnie the Pooh, which I have also just read for the first time in my life, courtesy of a Webdiarist who shall remain nameless, is a challenge. But this lady will read anything, anything at all.
Now what is all this about Ross and Mike. Stop arguing over my head. If Mike insulted me Ross I am sure I can sort him out, but I am easy.
F Kendall and Roger, I think that if parents deliberately set out to deny their children an introduction to the religion of their culture they fail those children just as much as they do if they force it down their necks. Religious beliefs are an integral part of many cultures, even ours. It is through religion that millions still find spiritual happiness. A child should at least know what options lie behind that closed door. My twin step children had atheist parents who never even introduced them to religion. When I came into their lives when they were 8 I took them to church occasionally and at least let them see what it was all about, and they spent a lot of time around my very gracious and religious mother whom they adored. She never pushed religion at them, she just let them see how her life was based on her faith and she practised it daily in terms of her compassion, empathy and caring about others. The boy rejected it all outright till he was around 25 when he ran into a crisis in his life. He joined a church and has never stopped believing. I was suprised to hear him on the radio once saying how he thought it was all nonsense when he was a kid, but thanked me and my family publically for the option we had given him and what it meant to him.
I say teach children about evolution, teach them about religion, and not just Christianity, teach them all the sciences, and let them decide when they grow up whether they want to pursue that knowledge further, or follow a religion or not. As I said, whether there is a God or not, religion can fill a huge need in many people. We should not try to take that from them.
I think there is a lot of truth in the saying that the family that prays together stays together. There is far less divorce amongst my friends who are religious than those who are not. That may or may not say anything but it is an observable fact to me.
As for rejoicing for the dying Mike. It is those who are left behind who are the unhappy ones. I know that when my brother was dying I sat and talked to him and I asked him when he got up there to tell this one this, and that one that. I rejoiced for him that he was meeting them again before me. He had no fear of dying and said that in the months that he had been ill there was always his "angel" standing there every night at the foot of his bed. On the last night a strange thing happened. Two others were in the room with him and one of them said she saw a great light hovering in the doorway, and then it went, and the other who had her backed turned, jumped and asked, what was that in this room. I do believe the spirit lives on in some form and I believe it does unite with the spirits of loved ones gone before. The next morning my brother said God has spoken to him the night before. He died that day. It broke my heart but I was happy for him.
There now. I can see you all shaking your heads and thinking, no hope for Jenny. But if you like I will put in a good word with you all with St Peter anyway.
Great to see you back posting Solomon and you will make a good writer. And Ross, thanks for the email, will be in touch.
BTW: This morning I met our Pru and the shadow treasurer in NSW in so I got to say my bit about a few things.
Nothing to fear except dentures
F Kendall: “Arguably, the only ones who had been brainwashed were the children of atheists.”
Arguably indeed; maybe a link to the site you referred to may allow me to draw my own conclusion. From personal experience I have observed that the minds of child quite often become the fertile (yet innocent) garden for the perpetuation of their parents’ fears and prejudices.
And thanks heaps for trying to destroy my belief in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy. Now my faith is greater than ever and the evidence is there for all to see. Thousands of bunnies are already appearing in stores all over the world and I still have the first threepence left in a glass beside my bed by the Tooth Fairy.
Yes many people abandon the religion of their parents (especially if their parents are very strict or fanatical, think Mark Chopper Read) but I would argue the majority do not.
My Father and Mother told me the Tooth Fairy really exists, as does the Easter Bunny. I bet you cannot prove they were wrong. And how many wars have been fought over the Tooth Fairy? My Tooth Fairy is the God of compassion, love and tenderness, and those who believe in Her have never ever gone into battle to defend that Faith. We believe in Her and what She truly stands for and have no fear of what/who others believe in. Nor do we shove it down other peoples gobs, we are confident and peaceful.
Therefore my Faith in my God must be far superior than the faith of many Christians (and other believers) who quite happily betray the essence of their religion when ever it suits them. Greed, war, violence (sexual and otherwise) all common traits in god fearing people. Believing in my imaginary friends gives me comfort in the same way those who believe in god find comfort in their imaginary man, or women or thing or whatever.
It is a bit like a drug really and may explain why those addicted to alcohol and other drugs find comfort in becoming born again Christians to help overcome their demons. Usually they replace one addiction with another.
Ross, hi mate, nope you haven’t meet me before and please feel free to talk, abuse, cajole or whatever, for those who believe in the Tooth Fairy are free, truly free, and have nothing to fear except dentures.
Religious upbringing
Mike lyvers (30/1) quotes Dawkins as suggesting that "being brought up in a religious faith is a form of child abuse." As is presumably, on those terms, bringing up a child on Fthr Christmas, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy....Well, any sensible person knows that the last two are total fakes.
There was an thread on the Guardian talkboards recently re a religious upbringing . Among hundreds and hundreds of replies, the only posts of those who had their parents beliefs in any form, were those brought up atheist. It certainly gave the lie to those who suggest that a religious education is "brainwashing", or that "give me a child to the age of 7, etc". Arguably, the only ones who had been brainwashed were the children of atheists.
Hey Mike
Sure Mike, firstly a misquote. My comment referred to your insults to Jenny and other believers, not me. You state the insult I pointed out was to me. Not so. If Jenny took offence or not is certainly for her to decide. I take offence on behalf of anyone with a belief regardless of issue mate.
As to rational, reasonable discussions. Certainly, again. I always do. Always have. I'm an atheist but I don't put down others for their beliefs. Your post to which I referred was highly offensive and is outside your normal posts.
I do know you from my previous life here and have always had respect for you. Just that post! It's the ridiculously defensive, and offensive comments that will always raise my hackles mate regardless of any prior contact.
I trust that we can return to being at least confreres here.
Beliefs of course should be challenged etc but in the end it really is personal excepting those from so many religions who do push their beliefs at us all the time. They need different responses as you would know mate..
Hello to Roger Earl, I've not met you before. Agree with most of what you wrote but of course we have some points on which we vary. Talk to you here soon OK.
Enough 2 Party barracking.
Ross, please be specific.
Area of a parallelogram
The scribes who wrote the In God We Trust episode of The West Wing grappled with a few of the major issues. Shakespeare at 20:30.
On the Left, Bartlett ('devout Catholic'), who insists one's faith is a powerful motivating force for driving the resolution of social conflicts by enacting good civil laws.
One the Right, typified by Congressman The Revd Don Butler, who would usurp the tools of politics to drive matters of individual belief into secular law.
The episode revolves around dilemmas dished up to Vinick, lead runner for the Republican nomination. At one point, Vinick is challenged by Butler to attend church, Butler's church, to sit in the front row and pray. (This cameo is the exact counterpart, or mirror image, of the recent Abbott-Rudd interplay.)
So, in regard to Vinick's faith, or lack of, several points were brought out. One, his team had got this far without ever inquiring about Vinick's record of church attendance. It goes without saying that the Christian jihadists would have chosen their candidates by the amount of knee-callus, and offered a ranking of this measurement of the time spent in prayer.
Second, as explanation for his lapse from church-going, Vinick told a confidante that it had to do with his wife's terminal illness.
Third, in private conversation with Bartlett, Vinick said religion lost its credibility when he read the Bible, and the brutal legalistic Jahweh on display in the Old Testament.
Just enough was said in those vignettes to open up the main questions about a public morality based on one particular code of beliefs. It's just as well the script stopped where it did. Vinick rested his criticism of an unquestioning faith on his observations of a reproduction original King James version. If he'd looked at the prologue, he would have seen James had authorised a Bible that included the Apocrypha (since discarded by Protestants) and a fatwah on anyone who removed any portion of those scriptures.
The beauty of it all was the sublime performance of actor Alan Alda, and Vinick's closing statement that he would not be attending Butler's church, because that would be using religion for political ends, and he wanted to uphold the principle of separation of church from state.
Other issues that bear on the election campaign are summarised in 2008: Field of Dreams?.
If I was a voter, I wouldn't care if Chuck Hagel didn't go to church every Sunday. From A Reluctant Rebel's Yell:
Morality WITH a God is hard, too ...
Jenny said (a little earlier): morality without God is far from assured. As for a secular legal authority to determine ethical principles, well I suppose the lawyers would make a lot of money, as usual. But surely society as a whole has to determine its values and ethical principles and in doing that in the past we have drawn heavily on religious teachings. So if we get rid of God, I think we have to do better than that.
The problem is, we have to do better than that even in the unlikely even that we could all agree on which prophet of which God we were going to use as our basis. The teachings of any and all religions are confusing and contradictory, and subject to revision by new leaders every decade or five - which is easy, because the confusing and contradictory nature of the books means that there's always a text there to support whatever bright idea or switcheroo the new prophets want to emphasize. Even the Sermon on the Mount is primarily a commentary and reinterpretation of the Ten Commandments.
So, each religion-led generation decides which of the writings to follow - emphasis usually being signified by which ones you actually do anything about, rather than what you say your principles are. For some reason, the smiting seems to always get a good look in here. Do we love our enemies and turn the other cheek or do we go for the eye for an eye? Oooh, so hard to choose. Do we bless the peacemakers, or do we kill every non-Jew in Greater Israel? Should peace be upon you, or do we go for jihad. Do we exclude the halt and the lame and the weak of sight? Do we put to death anyone who curses his father or mother? Well, we're just doing what God told us to do, so don't blame us.
The point is, we have to - all of us, individually and collectively - come to morality ourselves by choosing which rules we ourselves are going to follow, be they god-given, hallowed, philosophised, made up, or come to from life experience. And yes, this is hard. But no harder without religion's guide than with it - actually, it's easier without having to steel yourself to ignore God's injunction to not mar the corners of your beard (which, if precedence is priority, is more important than "don't prostitute your daughter", BTW, at least for Leviticus).
With that I would agree David
David: The point is, we have to - all of us, individually and collectively - come to morality ourselves by choosing which rules we ourselves are going to follow, be they god-given, hallowed, philosophised, made up, or come to from life experience. And yes, that is hard.
With that I would agree. And it is hard and in the process we have to respect the way people determine their own morality. But given that what is moral to some is totally immoral to others, then society as a whole has to set down some basics and guard against unacceptable moral drift.
Also the more multicultural we become, then the more we have to be aware that different cultures and different religions can have quite different moral values. There is some common ground but there is also much that is different and which can lead to disharmony in society. We see that already and it is not all religion based.
I think when we challenge people's faith then we have to be aware that in some cases it is based on a deep psychological need, and when it is people can be very threatened, and indeed unpredictable. So rightly or wrongly, religion is for many people a life raft. It is their sanity. There are those I know that if you took that away from them, they might not survive too well. It helps them get through their troubled day and who are we to say that is wrong so long as they do not seek to destroy others. But just how defensive some can be was revealed to me once.
My late brother was a very firm Christian. One day a radical evangelistic woman who was down and out and whom my mother took in (yet again) decided my brother was not as fervent in professing his faith as he should have been. Clearly she found this very threatening to her own. So she railed at my brother at the top of her voice and finally to the consternation of my mother, screamed at him: 'May you burn in hell, may you burn in hell'. We were all lost for words except my brother who turned to my atheist husband and asked him if he could get onto a good asbestos outfit for him. We all burst out laughing and then the lady went berserk. Thankfully she moved out.
Religion, whether it is based on a delusion or not, can be very important to people in need, and there are an awful lot of needy people in this world, most of whom just want spiritual relief from their suffering. Most do not want to throw a bomb at anyone.
Now I am off for nether parts so will leave you all. Cheers.
PS Jenny-
A Message
From risala.org, on their recent Khifalah Conference:
Just for balance, from Christianists on the March: