rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/15/83)
First, I think it is appropriate to answer the remarks addressed to me by
mail and news regarding my "overgeneralizations" about religion. Both
Laura Creighton and Tim Maroney have accused me of lumping their religions
together with autocratic and authoritarian religions like Islam and
Christianity. Allow me to recite definitions of religion: "the service and
worship of God or the supernatural","the expression of belief in *and reverence
for* a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the
universe". I don't think either Tim or Laura would associate their belief
systems with those definitions (and quite rightly so!), and I still don't feel
that I've slighted them with my remarks on religion and religionists (those
who would have *their* religious doctrine as the final arbiter). I really
don't think that either Laura's or Tim's belief systems (as Tim pointed out,
the doctrine of his "religion" is quite close to the point of view described
in one of my notes) qualifies as a religion under the dictionary definition.
Which is probably something to be proud of. However, since both Tim and Laura
choose to use the term 'religion' to describe their belief systems, please
substitute the term "authoritarian or autocratic religion" when you see the
word "religion" in my articles, as it is not my intention to malign belief
systems that don't adhere to the dictionary definition of religion. Frankly,
I don't know why one would want to use the term for such belief systems. If
a word doesn't exist to fit the definition, make one up! And use it!
Language is formed by the words people speak, not vice versa.
CONCLUSIONS:
-----------
1. I have no proof that there is or isn't a god. I also have no proof that
there is or isn't such a thing as the mighty Ubizmo, but I don't
choose to cower in fear of something that may/may not exist by obeying
(or going out and buying) the Book of Ubizmo. It really doesn't matter
to me whether or not either entity exists, or whether or not they play
golf together.
2. There seem to be rampant assumptions about the nature of god among those
who do believe in its existence. These assumptions seem to follow
along the lines of projection (creating god in man's image???) and
wish fulfillment (the need for a god to supply a sense of order to
a world that one finds senseless and disorderly, or to give humanity
a degree of "significance" that we apparently wouldn't have unless
an omnipotent deity had deigned to create us). It is, of course,
easy to "point out" "evidence" showing god to be this way. (And,
lo, a storm came to pass, and every twenty-fifth man was without
light in his eyes for four hundred days.) This assumes the existence
of god, plus it assumes the existence of a god of the form you
describe and desire. Even if these assumptions are true, why should
that affect me? Or you, if you choose to think about it? [I realize
that there are belief systems that do not place god on a pedestal or
throne, but given the evidence, why place it anywhere? Even these
belief systems tend to see god as an explanation for things or as a
giver of meaning to existence. Why?]
3. The power of belief in god has been demonstrated. But the power seems to
stem from the act of believing, and the feeling one gets from this
act. Otherwise, why would people who believe in "obviously" false
gods (like the sun, idols, or teddy bears) achieve the same effect?
This would mean that the god you seek is within yourself, and that
the affect can be achieved by believing in yourself instead of
believing in externals whose existence is unprovable.
4. The notion of human beings free to make their own choices is very
dangerous to the existing power structure, not just to religion. If
women can have careers as well as families, that "destroys" a
traditional concept of a family. If people can choose to select a
member of the same sex (or no one at all) as a life partner, this
also destroys existing concepts, by changing the notion of a family.
If people can choose what they like according to their own tastes,
then marketing executives (weren't they on the B ark?) and advertising
firms won't be able to determine/control the public's buying habits,
and the economy will suffer. (Is the auto industry an example?)
If people can choose not to have any religious beliefs, this too
causes changes in societal structure, where religious thought is
often taken for granted. The price of freedom for individuals is
a changing society. Some people do not want a changing society, because
their power and authority (men who "control" households, corporations
who seek to mold purchasing behavior, etc.) would be usurped and
undermined by such changes. They point to these changes as the
sources of "problems" in our society, and state that by going back
to the old values ("1 man, 1 woman, 2.4 kids, 2 cars, etc.") everything
will be all right. Do you believe that? Actually, I *do*. It would
be real nice if we all behaved in the same understandable, predictable
and monotonic manner, everything would be fine, and there would be a
sense of order and everything would be fine, and ... I've seen this
movie, though, and I don't like it. We are human beings, and we are
not perfect. We are individuals and we all have the right to
individual expression. Society needs to mold itself to the needs of
its people, not the other way around. (Sort of analogous to my earlier
comment about language.) If it doesn't, that could be catastrophic,
because (Ayn Rand notwithstanding) we need a workable society, and a
society that doesn't grow with its members is bound to break. I guess
what I've been trying to say amidst the babbling is that "going back to
'Christian' or any other values" doesn't buy us anything. What we need
is an accommodation for all individuals and not a single imposed
morality that befits a less free age.
5. I believe in science. That doesn't mean I believe everything that every
scientist tells me. Scientists happen to be human, and in this
human world of egos and opinions and indoctrinated patterns of thought
we find scientists that stray from the tenets of the scientific
method. ("That can't be so! MY evidence proves me right! And it
makes sense from a philosophical point of view, too. So there!!")
But (usually) logic and reason win out in the end BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE
IS BORNE OUT OVER TIME. The bible and other religious works depict
a view of the world from the point of view of the author (I know, I
know...) at the time of the writing. The only final arbiter of what
is the correct view of the world is the world itself. Science forms
ideas and concepts from the available existing physical evidence from
the physical world! "Do unto others" is a good idea BECAUSE IT WORKS
IN THE REAL WORLD!!!! Not because it says it in a book...
Of course, that's not the end of this. I don't wear an asbestos suit. I just
calls 'em like I sees 'em. Comments?? ...
Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlrlaura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (11/16/83)
The problem with asking Tim Maroney and me to "get another word" is that it is not just us. You are going to have to ask Buddhists, Taoists, and a huge branch (at least, perhaps the whole thing, for I really don't understand it that well) of Hindus. This is a *lot* of people. Then you are going to have to rewrite all the "World Religions" courses and books, because by your defintion they are not about religion, right? Hmm. Better check out all the books that have been written about thse not-religions. Do you still have any time? Start tracking down those lesser known not-religions. I suspect that you could spend several lifetimes finding out exactly what it is that various Neopagan groups are doing. Still working at it? Well, try every cult (or so-called cult), and the secret societies that you can discover. Gee. It sounds like a very huge project, open-ended and likely to require many lifetimes. And I can't help but theink that since the Hindus, Taosists and Buddhists were here long before the Humanists (as a contemporary movement -- I am not implying that nobody beheved as a humanist until recently!) that it is Rich Rosen and his friends that are going to have to globally change all references of 'religion' into 'authoritative and one-supreme being based religions' or even 'religions which do not promote the aims of humanism because it is contrary to the tenets of the religion'. i know. it's a mouthful. However, I do not think that your proposed solution will work because it is not backwards-compatible enough. In general, I get the impression that in your critique of religion what you really wanted to do was criticise Christianity, or perhaps Christianity and Judaism. if that was your intent, perhaps you should have phrased it that way. Even then you are going to have problems, because the Christianity of Saint Theresa (the little flower) and St. John of the Cross (for example) is very different from the Christianity of Anselm of Cantebury, is different from that of Martin Luther is different from... Somehow I think that this problem is the smaller of the two, however. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
nlt@duke.UUCP (11/17/83)
I'd like to join the fun and reply to a couple of comments made by Rich Rosen.
*****************************************************************************
(rlr)
I believe in science. That doesn't mean I believe everything that every
scientist tells me. Scientists happen to be human, and in this
human world of egos and opinions and indoctrinated patterns of thought
we find scientists that stray from the tenets of the scientific method.
...But (usually) logic and reason win out in the end BECAUSE THE
EVIDENCE IS BORNE OUT OVER TIME. The bible and other religious works
depict a view of the world from the point of view of the author (I know,
I know...) at the time of the writing. The only final arbiter of what
is the correct view of the world is the world itself. Science forms
ideas and concepts from the available existing physical evidence from
the physical world! "Do unto others" is a good idea BECAUSE IT WORKS
IN THE REAL WORLD!!!! Not because it says it in a book...
******************************************************************************
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since religion, like
science, involves human understanding and thus human error, religion, like
science, should constantly be checked against the "real world" (thus you
would have me say, perhaps, "I believe in God; that doesn't mean I believe
everything that every priest or theologian tells me"). In that I would agree
with you. And let me take it a step further: I agree with you precisely
because one measure of the worth of a religion is its accuracy. Religion,
properly, does not exist to make us feel good, or to give life an illusion of
purposefulness, or to give inner tranquillity. Religious beliefs are
1) perceptions of the structure and meaning (if any) of the world and of
the supernatural realm (if any) "behind" it; and 2) beliefs that if the
world is as we perceive it to be, it then makes certain demands on our
allegiance and conduct. Granted, many (most?) religious beliefs cannot be
inferred from physical evidence in the way that most scientific theories
can; nevertheless, since religions claim to describe reality, reality
should indeed be used as a criterion against which to judge religious
belief.
******************************************************************************
(rlr)
This assumes the existence
of god, plus it assumes the existence of a god of the form you
describe and desire. Even if these assumptions are true, why should
that affect me? Or you, if you choose to think about it? [I realize
that there are belief systems that do not place god on a pedestal or
throne, but given the evidence, why place it anywhere? Even these
belief systems tend to see god as an explanation for things or as a
giver of meaning to existence. Why?]
*****************************************************************************
"Even if these assumptions are true...": I think that if you allow
the assumption of the existence of a God who is the creator and sustainer
of the universe, it follows, since the very being of all created things
(including humans) is derived from God (that's implied in the term "creator"),
that God affects all persons and all of creation fundamentally and unavoidably.
And that, I think, is why "belief systems tend to see god as an explanation
for things or as a giver of meaning to existence". Again, it's not that
God makes us feel important but that the existence of a God with certain
attributes has some significant implications.
Comments, anyone?
N. Tinkham
duke!nlt (Duke University)